# which one



## scotty512 (Jan 8, 2013)

Hi All

I have the 5DMk3 / and various lenses

having come from a 40D with a EFS 10-22 lens I want to get another wide, the lowest I have is the 24-105, so should it be the 

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens 
or
Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 L USM Lens 

ta
scott


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2013)

If you will shoot mainly at narrow apertures, get the 17 – 40. It's less expensive, similar in IQ at narrow apertures, and takes the same size filters as your 24 – 105. If you need to shoot handheld in low light, and thus wide open, the 16 – 35 is a better choice.


----------



## yablonsky (Jan 8, 2013)

get the Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 L USM Lens. It is a great lens!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jan 8, 2013)

I bought the 16-35 over the 17-40 on the basis of having buyers remorse had I bought the 17-40 :-/

I'm not looking forward to the choice between the 24-105 and 24-70 f2.8 as I suspect I'll end up with both, but current plan is to buy what I really want when I can afford it, rather than work up with intermediate models. Currently working on prioritising over the next few years a 8-15 & 24-70 f2.8 to add to my 16-35 & 135, then hopefully add a 24/35 f1.4 and a 100-400 further down the line


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 8, 2013)

I have the 17-40 and it's a very good lens overall... No regrets... Especially with the 5d3, you dont have to fret raising ISO if you need that speed... Granted, for how i shoot, for architecture, aviation, landscape, anywhere when I'd be needing the UW for my FF, I would use a tripod or monopod, I have rarely been in situations where I needed the 2.8. Dont sweat the small stuff unless you plan on handholding this lens/camera in dark warehouses day in and day out.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Jan 8, 2013)

I have both but for the most part I use the wide angles for landscapes on a tripod, with narrow apertures... so usually at f/8 or higher. In this range or higher there is very little difference between the 16-35 or the 17-40. In these circumstances my filters are also easily swapped between my other lenses @77mm. 

Still have both but 99% of the time the 17-40 is carried because it's less weight, filter friendly with the rest of the bag and pretty good in the IQ department. If I had to do again... I'd save the money and buy the 17-40. I use other faster glass for low light work if that's needed.


----------



## sambafan (Jan 8, 2013)

Unless you really need the zoom, can I suggest the 28 f/1.8 ? Great lens, versatile due to the extra stops, and you can always back up a few steps. To me, the more light the better. Don't worry about the lack of a red ring!
If you're dead set on ultrawide, go 16-35. I've rented and loved it. Worth the added cost IMO.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jan 8, 2013)

consider the 8-15 fisheye!

I went through the same decision last month and sold my 10-22. I liked it for the distortion but couldn't use it on my 5d mk3. 24mm on FF is wide enough for my uses. For the ULTRA wide look, I really like the 8-15 at 14mm or 15mm. if you need to "de-fish" it, it's pretty easy to do in Lightroom. Also, it's in between the price for the 17-40 and 16-35!

Just a thought


----------



## Ew (Jan 8, 2013)

Don't mean to hijack this thread...

I love the 17-40 on 5d3, and strongly recommebd it. I've tried the 16-35, but the benefit was negligible for me. 

I have been searchin for a 15mm 2.8 fish for over 6 months though, and have started to think about the 8-15 though. 
In the mean time cropping away at the Samyang 8mm T3.8 due to its massive vignette on ff.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Jan 9, 2013)

Ew said:


> Don't mean to hijack this thread...
> 
> I love the 17-40 on 5d3, and strongly recommebd it. I've tried the 16-35, but the benefit was negligible for me.
> 
> ...




If you're on a FF...try Sigma's 15 mm Rectalinear Fisheye for FF (it also works on crops). At f/2.8 it sucks in light, is cheap, great close MFD and super sharp! I tested out both the 8-15 and this Sigma... hands down the Sigma won every time. I love it!!!

On a 5D3...



MotoGP 2012 Mazda Raceway, Laguna Seca - Helicopter Ride by David KM, on Flickr



Monterey Bay Aquarium by David KM, on Flickr


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jan 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> @AudioGlenn
> 
> This is why I like this forum, glad you are liking the 8-15.



=) Yes, I too am loving this forum! I've grown a lot in the last year just reading everyone's opinion's and thoughts. 

Here's a favorite of mine of my nieces at my cousin's wedding last week using the 8-15mm.


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 9, 2013)

*Neither?*

I'm hunting for an UWA zoom after owning the 17-40 twice, once on a crop and it was the wrong choice and once on the 5D3 and had a bad copy. I am really interested in the Tokina 16-28 especially with Roger Cicata's review. I'm just bummed it has no filter threads as I love using a B+W circular Pol on my 24-105. No I'm not ready to invest in drop in filters. 
Check out the Tokina. Reviewers match it to the 16-35 on the wide end in the center and has sharper corners than both Canon's.


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 9, 2013)

Went with the 17-40 because it is a bit smaller and lighter and is half the price. Did not feel the f2.8 was a big deal for me given the reasonable quality at high iso on the 5diii. I really liked my 10-22 on crop and that only opened to 3.5. Then, was lucky enough to find a good copy used and saved some more. 

Of course, that gave me an excuse to get the 14mm which is just fun!


----------



## scotty512 (Jan 9, 2013)

Totally love this forum too, really enjoy reading the threads 

thanks everyone for all the feedback, I dont think the fisheye is what I am looking for at present, but it will be one on the list for sure, after the 400mm 2.8 

still not sure, but I really like the 2.8 option so I reckon that am leaning towards the 16-35

time to ebay the 10-22 I think, couple that with the bonus from work should get it ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2013)

scotty512 said:


> still not sure, but I really like the 2.8 option so I reckon that am leaning towards the 16-35



I do some handheld night walkaround shooting, and the f/2.8 of the 16-35 II does come in handy.


----------

