p.2 #1 · EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II vs. EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Lars Johnsson wrote:
The 17-40 is not a better lens than the 16-35 II. The only reason to buy it would be the lower price...........
In my case the smaller size and lighter weight are significant advantages (I do a lot of landscape work while on foot, often on weeklong pack trips) and the f/2.8 maximum aperture of the excellent 16-35 provides no value. (And before another poster suggests that I'm a wimp for worrying about the size/weight difference between these two lenses, let my point out that I carry 12 pound or more of photo equipment, often across 12,000'+ passes along with other equipment - so I watch the ounces.)
I do own and carry other lenses that are larger, heavier, and much more expensive than the 17-40, I shoot full frame, and I carry a large tripod - but those things all make a difference in my photographic results.
As a value proposition, the 16-35 doesn't work for this photographer's landscape work. If it produced better images than the 17-40 I would buy one and carry the extra weight, but it doesn't. YMMV.
Dan
p.2 #2 · EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II vs. EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
I'm not doubting that weight is an issue for you Dan but 6 ozs?
I think that greater flexibilty, brighter viewfinder and superior image/sharpness/contrast (albeit minor on sharpness) is worth the extra 6 ozs a 16-35 weighs over a 17-40.
The 16 is no 'brick' and F2.8 is always nice to have. Just my view and not knocking yours.
The 17-40 is a a great lense but the 16-35 is better.
p.2 #3 · EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II vs. EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
BigTex wrote:
Question for the group...I'm starting to invest in some better lenses. Recently purchased the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens (fantastic!) and am now debating between the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II vs. 24-70mm f/2.8 L. I have a crummy 18-55mm kit lens and am trying to decide between getting a good wide angle first or going with the mid-range and bagging the cheapie kit lens. Thoughts?
If you need wide angle, get the 16-35mm.
If you need mid-range, get the 24-70mm.
If you can't decide, get both
The 16-35mm is definitely much better than your 18-55mm.
Edited on Mar 30, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Mar 30, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II vs. EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
danmitchell wrote:
In my case the smaller size and lighter weight are significant advantages (I do a lot of landscape work while on foot, often on weeklong pack trips) and the f/2.8 maximum aperture of the excellent 16-35 provides no value. (And before another poster suggests that I'm a wimp for worrying about the size/weight difference between these two lenses, let my point out that I carry 12 pound or more of photo equipment, often across 12,000'+ passes along with other equipment - so I watch the ounces.)
I do own and carry other lenses that are larger, heavier, and much more expensive than the 17-40, I shoot full frame, and I carry a large tripod - but those things all make a difference in my photographic results.
As a value proposition, the 16-35 doesn't work for this photographer's landscape work. If it produced better images than the 17-40 I would buy one and carry the extra weight, but it doesn't. YMMV.
Dan...Show more →
But he wrote the 17-40 is a sharper lens than the 16-35 mkII, and it's not sharper.
And saying the 16-35 II lens is big and the 17-40 small It's 95gr. more heavy and a about 1,5 cm longer...........
It's also a little bit wider which is good for landscape shooting.
Both lenses are good, but the only reason to buy the 17-40 is the lower price. Which of course is important
p.2 #6 · EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II vs. EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
The context is more around where to spend my money next. I ordered the 16-35 last week. Assuming my wife doesn't kill me, I'll buy the 24-70 next, and between these two lenses and my 70-200, I'll have the entire range covered. (wish me luck with my wife! )
It's 95gr. more heavy and a about 1,5 cm longer...........