Well, after all this time with a 16-35 v1 that I have been very attached to, I finally decided to press the order button and compare it with a v2. I think my copy of the 16-35 v1 is quite good, so we'll see...
danmitchell wrote:
If your goal is to get a "sharper" lens than you 17-40, the 16-35 will only be so at the largest apertures. At moderate to smaller apertures they are roughly equal with perhaps a slight edge to the 17-40.
I think you'll find there is more sample variation between individual Canon lenses than there is between the various models... so image quality is more dependent on getting a good sample of the model you pick, rather than on which model you pick.
Jeffrey wrote:
Oopps! I meant 21M pixels. That was funny (and kinda stupid!). Thanks, Dan!
That's OK. I can relate. I've been using computers long enough that I can actually remember when hard drives became available, and had "huge" capacities like 5 MEGAbytes. I regularly convulse my kids by using "megabytes" instead of "gigabytes" today, as in "I'm going to get a new 700 megabyte hard drive."
While the all-too-common assumption is that the bigger, badder, and more expensive lens is always "better," this is a false assumption in many cases.
You really need to consider how the lens will be used. Depending on the answer to that question I could argue that either the 16-35 or the 17-40 would be best.
Similar issues are abundant in lens decisions. I could say the same about any number of frequent post subjects here and on other boards regarding to following alternatives:
24-105 or 24-70?
70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 and IS or non-IS?
300mm f/4 or f/2.8 prime plus TC versus 100-400mm zoom?
50mm f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, f/2.5 macro?
35mm f/1.4 or f/2?
And so it goes...
Dan
markdennis wrote:
Thanks for the excellent advice. 'It depends' is probably what it comes down to. I think I will look into the new 24mm as well. Maybe the zoom does not need upgrading quite yet. I guess I would like a 20mm L lens. That would be great. Still, I'll see if I can find someone to lend me a 16-35 MK II to see how it works for me. After I replace my 85 1.8 with the L MK II I may not wish to spend anymore
danmitchell wrote:
That's OK. I can relate. I've been using computers long enough that I can actually remember when hard drives became available, and had "huge" capacities like 5 MEGAbytes. I regularly convulse my kids by using "megabytes" instead of "gigabytes" today, as in "I'm going to get a new 700 megabyte hard drive."
Dan
You are obviously barely older than drinking age, good sir! I vividly remember my first computer (a HP, no less!) which had 32 Kilobytes of RAM! And once I had loaded Visicalc, the user emory went down to 2 Kb! That taught one to be efficient! And yet, the productivity gain from this first computer was probably greater than that of any upgrade since...
