moriti Loc: California

Hi jeep_daddy, you are so right thats why I posted those pics, however, I was on a trip through Germany last year and I saw the most magnificent cathedral in Cologne and I sure could have used the extra speed.

moriti Loc: California

Thanks for the compliment on my boat shot, just wanted to say that your lens certainly has a much better feel and build but the 17-40mm is a L lens.

Your photos are also excellent!!

Michael

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

I have one example where the 16-35 may give better results. It is difficult to say because I haven't tried(do not own) the 17-40mm.
That would be in low light portraiture. Typically lens's perform worse when shooting close to lower aperture extremes(F5.6 would theoretically be sharper for a 2.8 lens than a F4 lens.) I haven't looked at the MTF chart to see if that's the case but I would expect it to be so.

Using a wide angle lens is very rare in portraiture. Unless you know what your doing I would not recommend it. Because of this I would say to get the 17-40. It will meet 99% of the members needs. Save your bucks and get another lens... Like the 70-200 2.8. or the 24-70 2.8. If your on a FF camera it would be questionable if you even need a 16-35 with the 24-70.

The portrait below was taken with the 16-35. I did it for the effect and because I could. Focal length was around 24mm and corrected slightly in post. To see the larger version(for details) you can visit my Street B&W Gallery on my website.

I was only about a foot from this guys face with this lens. Taken at F5.6

RUss

Another closeup with the 16-35

pigpen

I looked at this lens about 10 years ago, it was the first model. It was around $1,500 then. After reading more than one negative review, I went with the Tamron 16-34 F/2.8-4 for $499 (discontinued). Although I haven't been happy with the last Tamrons I bought, this lens is great. Also, mostly used for landscapes so F/2.8 is rairly used. Why pay the $$$$ for f/2.8 capabilities if your not going to use it. I've also been looking hard at the Canon 10-22.

moriti Loc: California

These are excellent photos with that lens, actually I would never have guessed they were shot with a wide angle. Portraiture is my favorite thing, mainly glamour, just don't have the opportunity to do that type of work, so I mainly shoot kids.
Anyway good advise.
Michael

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

Rixpix has it right! That lens (either the 16-35mm or the 17-40mm) is great when used on a full frame sensor body such as on a 5D, 6D or 1DS. If you want ultra wide and have a cropped sensor, look at the Canon 10-22mm. Why? The 10mm becomes 16mm and the 22mm become 35mm. Sort of the same as a 16 -35mm on a full frame (sensor) body. So my thoughts are: stay with a cropped sensor camera, by a Canon, Sigma or Tokina Ultra wide lens and take the left over money and be wise with it. J. Goffe

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I agree. In fact a few posts before this one I said almost the same thing.

NormPR

I have a Tamron 10-24 F3.5-4.5, clear and tack sharp. It does all that I need in a wide angle lens...Norm

Cameoblue Loc: British Columbia Canada

Thanks for the info. Stunning pictures. I'm thinking this is going to be costing me some money pretty soon.

Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now

I have it, use it, like it, and intend to take it along on a coming trip. It's
a good piece of versatile glass.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

If you can afford the Canon 16-35mm then buy it; the glass is high quality you can't go wrong with this lens and if purchase a Canon FF camera it will fit with no problems as opposed to the EF-s 10-20mm one.

nick1984 Loc: Spokane

WOW, they are Awesome!