17-40L or 16-35L or Tamron?

[disappearingmist]

I have been saving up for the Canon 17-40L f4 lens for several months now. However, I have been increasingly unhappy with my wide angle kit lens, because of the f4-5.6.

I initially wrote off the 16-35L because it is double in price, but the f2.8 is quite attractive now. I am now looking at it again, in addition to the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which is similar in price to the original 17-40 I was looking at.

Would it be worth it to me to go for the 16-35L like I think it would be? Superior glass is superior glass. Thoughts?

[kurtwall]

Rent or borrow both to try them out. Then make a decision.

[disappearingmist]

Definitely a good point! Thanks! I will definitely look into doing that.

[inkista]

16-35 is a very ambitious design, and may not be as nice as the less-ambitious 17-40 f/4. But if you want fast, then it's worth looking into, as is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM if you're on a crop body.

If you don't mind compromising on image quality for price, you might also want to look into finding a used ~$1000 16-35 L MkI (the current one is the Mk II version--sharper and better corner performance is the general concensus), or its predecessor, the ~$750 17-35 f/2.8L. The farther back you go, the cheaper the lens, and the less the performance.

[disappearingmist]

Ahh, thanks for those recommendations! I will definitely look into those. Thanks so much!

[cphoniball]

If you're on a crop body and are looking for a wide-angle solution, you may want to look into the Tokina 11-16 2.8 or the 12-24 f4. Both are cheaper than the other lenses you mentioned.

If you're looking for a more normal range zoom, I can vouch for the Tamron 17-50. Excellent quality zoom for a great price.