Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
I agree that they aren't that far apart in the situations you describe — f/8 and up, 18mm and up. The 16-35 is still better, but folks who aren't as critical about edge conditions may not even notice, and the lower pricing may make the 17-40 accessible to folks who cannot afford the 16-35.
As to the backpacking question, having backpacked with both I'd say that any differences here are marginal — when it comes to size/weight they are not that different in the pack. In other words, if I were looking to lighten my load I wouldn't do it by closing the 17-40 over the (better) 16-35 when other options exist — lighter tripod, taking fewer lenses, considering camera weight, lightening my non-photo gear, etc. (See some details [url=https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=100&LensComp=949]here[/url. The weight difference is about 5 ounces — not completely insignificant if you share my belief that "looking after ounces can save pounds," but not enough to make me sacrifice the better quality of the 16-35.)
So, while the 17-40 is a bit lighter and shorter, I would not say that makes it automatically "better" for backpacking unless one is willing to accept the compromises in image quality. It is a decent lens, but the 16-35 is much better.
(There's no question that the 17-40 "wins" when it comes to low cost, which is why I think that it can still be a useful lens and a good option for folks whose budgets are limited.)
BTW, I share your enthusiasm for the 24-105mm lenses for backpacking. I no longer use that lens, but I used to, and I have friends who still do. One (whose work you'll find in places like The Ansel Adams Gallery) uses an old 24-105 plus a 100-400 in the backcountry on some trips. I once did a weeklong pack trip into a remote section of the Southern Sierra on which gear weight reduction was a more pressing concern, and I used only the 24-105 for that trip. 24mm is wide enough for a whole lot of landscape photography, and 105mm can be long enough.
My FF backpacking kit these days tends to place a 24-70 at the core, virtually always adding a f/4 70-200mm, too, since I like longer focal lengths for landscape. (I actually don't use the 16-35 all that much — maybe 5% of shots?) If I went beyond those two lenses, the next thing I would add is a 1.4x TC. I'd rarely take more than that on my back unless I was doing a very short hike into a base camp, though the 16-35 would be the next thing I'd add. If I were in a wildlife rich area (not likely here in California's Sierra Nevada!) I'd consider a 100-400. Maybe. But virtually never. Even on those unusual occasions when I get pack train support.
When bulk/weight become a really big issue for me (occasionally when I travel with non-photographers) I switch to a APS-C system with a single lens, such as a 16-55...
In the end, a lot of this comes down to personal reference, doesn't it? For example, I note that you really like wide to normal focal lengths and use them very effectively. I lean more toward normal to long. And other things like age and fitness and the terrain one visits make a difference too.
YMMV,
Dan...Show more →
I agree with you generally and specifically related to everyone has their own preference; but note that I am spending an extra $600 to shave 1/2 pound here and there - I have gone to R5vs5DSR, quilt $600, bivy $600, lightweigh mattress $600, lightweight pack $600, very light tripod, incenting my 25 year old son freinds to join, and no spare underwear  or gas; and heavy coordination with my hiking buddies -- to make up for my age and need to carry batteries. Thats a whole bunch of 1/2 lbs. 1/2 a lb is really important to me. If I did not use it in my last backpack trip, its not coming.
If you are reaching ($$$) to get a ff landscape kit, eg a 2nd hand 5dsr and 2nd hand 17-40L is a fantastic low price kit that is great for back packing too.
|
