Upload & Sell: On
| Re: Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era |
Now I wish I still had my 17-40 -- it's getting to be time to shoot some comparative A-B shots with the 16-35II at various apertures. Too much academic talk here, and not enough photos!
Something only mildly touched on so far with the 17-40 is that it has more extreme light fall-off and soft edges/corners (the two conditions are related) than the 16-35, and stays softer even into the f/8-11 range.
If anyone thinks the only things really going for the 16-35 are one stop more light and one millimeter more wide focal length, then it must seem Canon has really scammed buyers out of $700+ extra dollars. But as one of those buyers, coming off the 17-40, I don't feel scammed at all -- I could have sent the 16-35 back to B&H and kept the 17-40! It's not a ego thing, not in that sense anyway -- I'm not rich and can't keep an expensive lens that doesn't perform.
As I've said, if the 17-40 works for you, bravo! You are ahead of the game and can use that savings for something else.