|
If it's only really going to be used for web purposes, you may as well save yourself 50% and go with the 17-40mm f/4L USM. It's a sacrifice of a stop, and 1mm on the wide end, but, you gain 5mm on the long end. Consider, also, that good quality (read: expensive) filters typically come in 77mm. The 16-35mm is an esoteric 72mm lens (along with the 200mm f/2.8L II). That is, high quality filters might be a bit more expensive.
I think my landscape images will show you how the 17-40mm performs. Both would be pretty nasty on stars at the edges.
Bottom line: If I had cash, I'd get the 16-35mm.
H
|