decisions decisons......glass

markta

markta

Messages
3,036
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Having been knocked off my bicycle several weeks ago, I am due injury monies from the driver's insurers...

Ok, when the funds come through, I will have enough to immediately buy a 17-40L from Ian (kerso) after giving my ex back some of the cheque..

Question is, do I get the 17-40, or do I save the £600 and be on potatoes, pasta and peas and save up for the 16-35 f2.8L? I'd be about £500 short....

Any help would be appreciated. Am I correct in saying that the 16-35 is sharper overall and has better corner to corner definition on a full frame sensor? The primary use would be for landscapes, but also for unusual perspectives on animals etc. etc.

Thanks in advance peeps (y)

PS. another factor is that I already have a 77mm adaptor ring for Lees, ready to use on the 17-40. The 16-35 would need an 82mm one...
 
Hi,

I am sure Canon Bob will be along to advise you as I know he bought my 16-35 F2.8 Mark I, I am sure I have seen reviews that state if you don't need the 2.8 then the 17-40 is a great saving. I have tried the 17-40L and to be honest I couldn't tell much difference on the overall image, I have no doubt it you cropped and pixel peeped then there might have been a difference.

I'll try and find a couple of images to show you from either lens.

Mike.
 
Can't comment on the MkII but I went into my local Canon pro dealer about 3 years ago (before they went bust) to buy a 16-35 and walked out with the 17-40 as it was better in the corners. It may have been the 2 I tried but that was certainly my experience.
 
I'm really not sure there is much to choose between the two, except the f/2.8 bit. Not a big deal for me at that focal length, but only you can decide that.

If there is anything in the image quality, overall, then run the files through the Canon DPP Raw correction software (for distortion, vignetting and residual CA) and I can't believe they will be anything less than indistinguishable.

Peas as well. That's decadent living.
 
I must say I bought the 17-40 after testing it and the 16-35 on a full frame sensor and came away with the 17-40, as grumpybadger has said its sharper in the corners. Its also a whole lot of wonga less.
I suppose it all depends upon its use and if you need or really really want the 2.8. or it you really like spuds, pasta and peas !!.
 
markta said:
Having been knocked off my bicycle several weeks ago, I am due injury monies from the driver's insurers...

Ok, when the funds come through, I will have enough to immediately buy a 17-40L from Ian (kerso) after giving my ex back some of the cheque..

Question is, do I get the 17-40, or do I save the £600 and be on potatoes, pasta and peas and save up for the 16-35 f2.8L? I'd be about £500 short....

Any help would be appreciated. Am I correct in saying that the 16-35 is sharper overall and has better corner to corner definition on a full frame sensor? The primary use would be for landscapes, but also for unusual perspectives on animals etc. etc.

Thanks in advance peeps (y)

PS. another factor is that I already have a 77mm adaptor ring for Lees, ready to use on the 17-40. The 16-35 would need an 82mm one...
Click to expand...

Get the 17-40 & save the wonga. It'd be worth it if only to keep off the spuds, pasta & peas - methane alert!
 
Lol....I guess I'd be helping the environment! :)

Thanks for the replies....The extra stop would come in handy, especially in low light though I don't really need 2.8 at the moment for the type of shots I'm taking...

My main concern is with the 21 mega pixel sensor. The 17-40 seemed ideal for the 10MP 5D but will it be awesome in front of a 24MP sensor?

I guess I'd like to have the extra stop, knowing it's there if I need it but can't quite afford it at the moment...plus I'd be doing my bit to protect the ozone layer lol..

Any further thoughts most welcome! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top