17-40 vs 16-35

[jackietan]

Welcome those who had hand on on both lens and give value commend, thanks.

[heheapa]

I think here has a very good comparison:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

[jackietan]

Thanks heheapa, that very useful. own hand on try out should be next, one of these day to loan a 16-35mm for a test.

Originally Posted by heheapa I think here has a very good comparison: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

[superon]

I have tried both. If you have the $$$ get theb 16-35 mk II....very solid lens. Tack sharp and fast too. Only thing the filter size is 82

[flipfreak]

if u are comparing the 17-40 with the 16-35 mk i, then i would say go for the 17-40. i tried the 16-35 and was not impressed with the corner sharpness.

[lightning]

16-35 Mk1 is a flop...but the mk2 truly shine!

[cherkel]

yup...if can afford..
go for 16-35 mk2 but one thing about it is the 82 mm filter size...
but have no choice, canon redesign it 82mm to solve the problem of mk1

[flipfreak]

if the mk ii is on par with the 17-40 in terms of sharpness without stopping down, i am tempted to get it as my next lens.

[lumin008]

This tool is limited to centre, edge and corner resolution and CA, but I find it very usedful:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...0&LensComp=412

[Benng]

Originally Posted by flipfreak if the mk ii is on par with the 17-40 in terms of sharpness without stopping down, i am tempted to get it as my next lens.

Get the 16-35mkII. It is a good lens.

No regret getting it.

[flipfreak]

Originally Posted by Benng Get the 16-35mkII. It is a good lens. No regret getting it.

my priority is still the 35L.

[miniUltraman]

Originally Posted by heheapa I think here has a very good comparison: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

I think this is comparing the old 16-35MI right... not the MII

[Dithiolium]

Originally Posted by miniUltraman I think this is comparing the old 16-35MI right... not the MII

You're right that article compares the 16-35MkI.
The Mk2 is an excellent lens, and if using APS-C, will always be using the sweet spot of the lens.

[Snoweagle]

The MK II corrects the flaws that was present in MK I, so getting the MK II is an obvious reason.

[Fragnatic]

hmmm... (sry if this is considered digging up an old thread)

between the 17-40L and the 16-35L II, which has better distortion control? on a APS-C sensor cam.
thanks.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Fragnatic hmmm... (sry if this is considered digging up an old thread) between the 17-40L and the 16-35L II, which has better distortion control? on a APS-C sensor cam. thanks.

Please do not double post. You've already queried on this in another thread. Thanks.

[Fragnatic]

Originally Posted by calebk Please do not double post. You've already queried on this in another thread. Thanks.

i thought it would be more appropriate to post here rather than to hijack other ppl's thread.
this thread more related mah..