So I am trying to complete my arsenal of lenses for when I get my FF body (which one is up in the air) and I am missing two lenses.

I own the 70-200 F2.8IS, and need the 24-70, and a UWA.

Now, my choices are the 17-40 or the 16-35.

I was 95% going with the 17-40 because....

1)Half the price, and I shoot at F8 or greater.
2)77mm threads
3)Same image quality (in my eyes)

However, that last 5% is bothering me.....why? The 1mm. Is the 16mm over the 17mm on the wide end worth it for landscapes? Is it worth twice the price? Someone smack some sense into me!!!!!!!!!!

 

16-35mm all the way on a FF. thats my story and Im sticking to it. Dave if your gonna go FF be prepared to pay.

 

It's honestly not about the money. However, I would never shoot wide at 2.8. Hell, I would never shoot wide lower than F8, so I question the spend, furthermore, I hate the fact that the 16-35 is an 82mm, rather than a 77. I have been searching online for some good examples of 17mm shot vs a 16mm shot, to see what I'm really losing. I love my Sigma 10-20 on my 30D, which is a cropper, meaning, it's seeing a 16mm field of view, but is that a big difference over 17mm?

Believe me, if I'm going to get a 1DsMKIII, I'm prepared to pay.

Also, reviews like this don't make it easy....
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...non-17-40.shtml

 

That's an old review and not the vastly improved 16-35L Mark II, also.

 

go get a 16-35 I and you'd solve your 77mm issue.

That's what I did when I had Canon; purely for the 77mm reason.

 

ive shot with both (on a 5dmkll) and if you never go below f8, then get the 17-40 and call it a day. the 16-35 is nice if you do a lot of indoor/party shoots and flash is not always an option. otherwise it would be wasted on you.

 

I went with the 16-35 because of the extra 1mm on the wide end. Makes a big difference. Now I need an 82mm slim polarizer, and an 82mm slim 10 stop ND. anyone know a good nd that will work well on the 16-35???

 

Exactly!

 

you know, the rumour is they're releasing a 14-24

 

That would suck

If I deem it better, I will sell the 16, and grab that one. A 14-24 would make more sense than a 16-35, considering the next lens is a 24-70.