17-40 Upgrade Options

[Frisco]

I currently have the 17-40 f/4L and 24-70 f/2.8L, and although I love the 24-70, it gets limited use because of the size. I have been using the 17-40 as my walk around lens, and although I like its smaller size it's a bit slow and sometimes leaves me wanting more. It never really bothered me until hiking Half Dome twice in the last week, in which I was trying to shed weight as much as possible and carrying only one lens (I took the 17-40). I started thinking that I should look at a wide angle prime to complement what I have because of the even smaller size and wider aperture. I started looking around and was gravitating towards the 24 f/1.4L, but I am not sure if I would get more bang for the buck by selling my 17-40 to a friend and upgrading the wide angle zoom to the 16-35 f/2.8L and skipping the prime for now. Advice?

 

[jwedehase]

I've been paying close attention to the 17-40 and 16-35, ironically enough. Every review I've read says the 17-40 is sharper, and that means a lot to me. I'd rather have a sharper lens over a 4 to 2.8 speed increase. If you're gonna "do it" then you gotta "do it." Make your purchase effective. Sure, 4 to 2.8 is a couple stops, but, just as you're thinking, 1.4 is several more.

Is your question really "I want a faster lens, what should I do?" perhaps? Is the 24-70 really that cumbersome? Tech specs says 4.9" long and 2.1lbs, versus the 17-40's 3.8" and 1.1lbs. Hmm.. it's a pound, I know... but it's like my father-in-law, who is an avid road cyclist says "These guys are spending $5K on titanium and lightened parts on their bicycles to save a few grams in the end. Heck, take a crap before your ride and save a lot more weight than that."

I know it's a pound... but I dunno. It's up to you, I guess.

 

[Ebn]

Unless you find a really good sample of the 16-35mm f/2.8 then I'd stick with your 17-40mm. The 16-35mm isn't that sharp wide open (I tested 5 different copies) and you'll be better off sticking with a sharp 17-40mm lens. There's only one stop's difference between the two.

BTW, are you shooting full frame or planning on shooting full frame? If you're not, then the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is the one to look at.

 

[Frisco]

Thanks guys - I have a full frame 5D. I was originally planning on just keeping the 17-40 and adding a couple key primes for specialty use, but I started second guessing my plan and wondered if I would be better off to just upgrade the zoom. It sounds like I am probably better off to just go ahead with my original plan.

This is what I currently am using:
15mm f/2.8 fisheye
17-40mm f/4L
24-70mm f/2.8L
70-200mm f/2.8L IS
50mm f/1.4
100mm f/2.8M
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5X
420EX
MT-24EX

I guess I shouldn't show you my bike :lol:

 

[Ebn]

Nice setup there. I'd stick to your original plan as well.

 

[attack11]

sigma 20mm f1.8

it'd be great on the 5d.