[jordan45]

please help!

thanks!

[ivanlee615]

16-35 2.8L
日本攝影雜誌很多也用此鏡加5DmarkII

[lou4love]

論鏡品質16-35 2.8L當然好過17-40 4L, but貴double. 廣角影景又很小用2.8

[ccakwwl]

i had been try both ... but at the end i go for 16-35 2.8L , after u try you can tell the different . ( very time i try any lens my Macbook pro with me so i can make sure the different ) by the way i also use Mark II .

[jordan45]

thank you all brother.........

[Obi-Wan]

17-40 picture quality is BETTER than 16-35 a little in terms of sharpness, but More or less the same in CA, 16-35 version 2 does not worth double the price of 17-40. I choose 17-40!

[gwu1]

Obi-wan,

Certain review shares your views. It is odd that the much more expensive lens is not as good as cheaper lens.

[sexysexy]

Obi-wan, can you tell us more about why it is so? Any photos for comparison? Thanks.

[Obi-Wan]

我都唔知16-35咁大鑊， 我用記者friend支version 2同我支17-40比較最wide及最tele, 都唔覺16-35好D, 16-35同70-300DO係我試過canon以C/P計較唔抵嘅兩支。唔知CS有冇得試，如有各位可上去試o下

[masonlin]

check this web site
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review