My buddy Markitos ended up one upping my 20-35 with a 16-35. NOT a 16-35II but the original version… That got me thinking, and I checked KEH.com and it turns out they had one for less than my 17-40 and 20-35 are worth combined. I had a 16-35II for a while, but it was too big, too have, and I especially hated it’s hood and the fact it needs 82mm filters. The 16-35I isn’t as good optically, but it’s a 77, very close in length to the 17-40, and very close in weight to the 20-35. It also uses the same hood as the 17-40, which means my customzed 24-105 hood will also work here.
Here’s the shots from the 16-35:
here’s the shots from the 20-35:
and here’s the shots from the 17-40:
yes I realize it’s very hard to pick a winner from web images, but there’s a meathod to my madness here… First, what you see on these web sized images is similar to the differences you’d see in a normal sized print at normal viewing distances. Also, to really compare you’d need 100% crops which would be a ton of work for ~75+ shots. I’ll be peeping these tonight in LR and reporting back, but these are the images for all to enjoy for now.
