LFingar wrote:
The 17-40 is certainly a good lens, but the 16-35, even though it covers only a slightly different focal length, has 2 advantages:
It has Image Stabilization,which the 17-40 doesn't. Some people claim it is unnecessary, but I like it. Especially the latest generation IS.
The lens also tests better for sharpness and color, especially in the corners, over the 17-40. I didn't do a side-by-side comparison, since I have already sold my 17-40, but so far I like the results.
Now, if it will just quit raining so that I can go out and play with my new toy!
The 17-40 is certainly a good lens, but the 16-35,... (
show quote)
Thank you for that. I use the 18-200 lens most of the time and am unable to achieve such sharpness. Though I suspect at least some of the fault is with my lack of expertise in the best settings to use.
I have the 10-20 and the 50mm but am still learning how best to use them both.
I'd like to get a good walk about lens in a smaller range but am not sure if it would make any difference to the sharpness in my photos.