Canon 16-35 or 17-40

I am contemplating between the 16-35 2.8 and the 17-40 4.0L. After seeing some of Robert Delfs results with his 17-35 Nikon I really liked what I was seeing. The 18-55 kit lens is fine but I think the quality is sorely lacking to the above lens choices. Anyone have any thoughts on whoch of these two they would pick for the 20D?

I can see one is twice the price of the other. But, this is obvioucly a long time lens to add to the stable.

Cheers

Todd

I love my 16-35, which I bought some years ago for my Canon Elan 7 35mm camera. It's a great lenses, but not wide enough on my Canon 20D. I use the EF-S 10-22 on the 20D since it gives the same wide field of view I once had with the 16-35. Canon had not introduced the 17-40 when I got my 16-35, but I would have been tempted by the price of the 17-40 over the 16-35. Both have the solid build and excellent sharpness for which Canon L lenses are noted. You save on the 17-40 by accepting the slower f4 speed. The 17-40 has become very popular.

I'm keeping the 16-35, though. It will get used again when I upgrade to a Canon full-frame DSLR at some point.

I am happy using the 15mm fe for WA right now and want to try and avoid using EFS lenses in case I too advance out of cropped sensors. Don't want to have lenses that won't carry over to a new camera down the road. That is a ways away though.

So it sounds like I could be very happy with the 17-40 for half the price...

I vote for the Sigma 12-24. No front filter but it is WIDE. And will be wider on FF, being the only 12-24 that works on FF.

If you must go with a Canon L, I'd go for the 17-40. It has fewer issues with FF.

I have both the 16-35 and 17-40, and they're both great lenses. But you don't get any real advantage with the 16-35 for twice the money, so if you must buy one of those lense, I'd suggest getting the 17-40.

HOWEVER, I would strong consider INSTEAD the EF 10-22 (which is -- on the 20D -- roughly the same view as the 16-35 and 17-40 on a FF camera). Unless you're "on the verge" of switching to FF, the 10-22 gives you true wide angle, and is a wonderful lens. Either of the other lenses will only give you medium range (like your kit lens), and really won't add that much to your arsenal (other than better glass). OTOH, the 10-22 is a whole other ballgame, and greatly expands your shooting options. I'm confident that you'll love it if you go that route.

I am not changing right away. Plan on staying put for a few years now. That might be a good point then as I want WA for topside. Underwater I am very happy with the 15mmfe and could still use the 18-55 kit. It's just Robert raved about the quality of the Nikon version and I was impressed with the results. So I guess I have to decide between two separate uses...

For a 20D, you need the 10-22. Forget about the future drawbacks of the EF-S lenses. In a few years, our housings and bodies will be relics, too, and they cost a lot more than the 10-22. You'll love this lens on the 20D. Also, it's way cheaper than upgrading now to a 5D, new housing and a 16-35.

For a 20D, you need the 10-22. Forget about the future drawbacks of the EF-S lenses. In a few years, our housings and bodies will be relics, too, and they cost a lot more than the 10-22. You'll love this lens on the 20D. Also, it's way cheaper than upgrading now to a 5D, new housing and a 16-35.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well if you are going that route I would suggest also considering the Sigma 10-20mm which is way cheaper than the 10-22mm EF-S Canon. The lenses are very similar in specs and several reviews show hardly any advantage of one over the other. It is my favourite WA lens for the 20D. You need the exact same dome port, extension ring and diopter as you would use for the Canon 10-22mm EF-S and your housing.