# Which to buy: 16-35 f/2.8 vs. 17-40 f/4...



## canon23 (Sep 11, 2012)

Hi All,

I'm at the point of researching and saving for my next lens. It's either going to be the 35 f/1.4 or one of the following option: 16-35 or 17-40. But my question is on the 16-35 or 17-40 option, I'm debating which one of these two to get. Main usage is for:

1) Wedding (primary)
2) Landscape (secondary)

I'm shooting w/the 5D Mark II (w/430EX)
Please provide your reasons for choosing one over the other. Thanks again!


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 11, 2012)

16-35 if money isn't an issue... f4 might be a bit slow for weddings... what camera are you suing it with?


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 11, 2012)

canon23 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I'm at the point of researching and saving for my next lens. It's either going to be the 35 f/1.4 or one of the following option: 16-35 or 17-40. But my question is on the 16-35 or 17-40 option, I'm debating which one of these two to get. Main usage is for:
> 
> ...



16-35mm II > 17-40mm


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2012)

I had a 17-40mm L, and somehow never warmed up to it on my 5D MK II. I sold it a year ago, after finding a old Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that was better.
I caught a new 16-35mmL at Newegg for $1350 around the end of July, but have not yet decided if I like it better than my old prime.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2012)

16-35 II. Sharper in the corners, and sometimes you need the extra stop.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 16-35 II. Sharper in the corners, and sometimes you need the extra stop.



+1...it was a right decision for me.


----------

