Hi can anyone tell me what the difference is between these two lenses apart from the mark ii being the newer version also would the differences be enough to notice for the average person ?
Thanks for any help or info
From what I've read the mkII is a vast improvement, the mk1 is supposed to be not much better than the 17-40L for a load more money (I've no idea what 2nd hand prices of the mk1 are now so that was comparing new vs new price). Some reviews reckon the 17-40L is better than the mkI.
If you really want 16mm I'd get the II, otherwise I'd have a look at the 17-40 tbh.
On FF I believe the difference becomes greater. The mk2 performs better at the wide angle, while mk1 was better towards 35mm. This is all about edges and corners that 7D does not see.
I am quite eager to replace my 17-40mm so if I get lucky in an auction I may back this up (or not) with hard facts. Sharpness is a big deal to me, but so are 77mm filters.
Thanks everyone for the replies. @ daugirdas I hope we are not bidding on the same auction lol.
The prices seem very crazy, second hand going for just under the price for a new one.
Thanks everyone for the replies. @ daugirdas I hope we are not bidding on the same auction lol.
The prices seem very crazy, second hand going for just under the price for a new one.
Considering it's a lens with issues I have a rather low limit set on the budget, so don't worry. It's a case of 'I'll give it a go and might even keep it if I like it'.
I would more easily trust a guy in a popular camera store chain that this "review". All he talks about is HDR, and he hasn't really talked about the lens in depth, only that he likes it.
While better I remain open minded that there may be a huge difference and perhaps this may be best reflected in the prices at dealers like MPB where V2.0 is usually priced at £100 above V1.0
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.