Thanks useful information: 
The 16-35 kills the 17-40 at f2.8..... And probably at f4 too. But who often uses a wide at either aperture. I use the 17-40 and when I purchased it I had the money to go either way and no hesitation not to spend. I chose the 17-40 because it fulfils my needs. At f8 it is tack sharp. Lots of people whinge and whine about lack of sharpness in wides and most often its people who dont use them or dont know how to use them. I use the 180L a lot and so have a very good comparison of what an ideal sharp lens should be and the 17-40 when I use it works great. As to whether its better than your lens. Not sure I had both but at the time of owning the 10-22mm I was one of the people who thought they knew how to use it but didnt. My brother gets great shots. I immediately notice colour rendition upon the change though and I know the 1ds meters and replicates colours beautifully which may pursuay my thoughts but to anyone who can use a wide there is nothing wrong with the 17-40. Just read magazines and look at what lens took what shots, youll find time and again 17-40 pops up way more often. Just like the 100-400 makes way more entries into photo comps than either comparable prime that people on these websites will tell you is way better.
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
Originally Posted by AdamR
