Canon EF 16-35mm or 17-40mm

[Shin Howard]

+1 for the 17-40L
It's almost the same construction as 16-35L II.
Save your gold for other Lens.

 

[imouyang]

Seriously if you dun need the extra 1 stop advantage~ Go get the 17-40

 

[tirimasu]

You are all so incorrigible and childish..

Someone is asking for help on these two lens 16-35 or 17-40 on which to get and you all guys still give suggestions like SIGMA lens... NIKON lens... like wtf right?

 

[charlesleong]

You are all so incorrigible and childish..

Someone is asking for help on these two lens 16-35 or 17-40 on which to get and you all guys still give suggestions like SIGMA lens... NIKON lens... like wtf right?

people are giving suggestions.

i don't see you giving your suggestion.

 

[antonioshabirto]

You are all so incorrigible and childish..

Someone is asking for help on these two lens 16-35 or 17-40 on which to get and you all guys still give suggestions like SIGMA lens... NIKON lens... like wtf right?

wow that's really harsh comment..... to say ALL!!!

It reflects badly on yourself which is just better off to shut up.

 

[roylimhl]

wow, pretty heated here

Actually, i am a canon L fan.. got 24-105 and 70-200L... now needed a super wide...

Looking at all the comments and thanks for the input...

17-40L is my choice... I wonder if Canon is coming up with IS for super wide though.

 

[Snoweagle]

go ahead n say ...... no restriction. yes true canon forum but once again no restriction and we should always recommend the best to others.

thats my stand. Leica is good but does it have a something superb comparing to the 14-24. whats in store for leica ..... 19mm ?? the closes they have is 21-35 which is not comparable to the context here.

once again we should not live in a nutshell :nono:

TS already stated "Canon EF 16-35mm or 17-40mm" so which means he might already have made up his mind on either. Anyone can recommend any lens but lets just stick to his decision.

 

[Snoweagle]

But must we be so narrowminded? :dunno:

The Nikkor 14-24 is arguably the best UWA lens designed for 135 format on the market right now. I think a lot of photographers with their priority on quality will overlook the minor hassle of an adaptor.

No doubt Nikon's UWA's are a plus over Canon's but as stated above, TS might already have made up his mind on either the 16-35 or 17-40 so why change it? Who knows that TS might like or not like others to 'divert' his decision. :dunno:

 

[Raied]

wow, pretty heated here

Actually, i am a canon L fan.. got 24-105 and 70-200L... now needed a super wide...

Looking at all the comments and thanks for the input...

17-40L is my choice... I wonder if Canon is coming up with IS for super wide though.

i think IS for wide is not that neccesary

 

[Snoweagle]

i think IS for wide is not that neccesary

Even for shorter tele focal lengths also not necessary.

 

[roylimhl]

That's true....