#CANON MARK 5D II LENSES FULL#

While the 16-35 is a better performer in the corners at f/4, as you stop down the 17-40 catches up to - and may marginally and probably insignificantly surpass - the 16-35.

#CANON MARK 5D II LENSES FULL#

The 17-40mm f/4 L is a fine ultra wide lens on full frame cameras also. It uses a slightly non-standard 82mm diameter filter thread, so your 77mm filters from for the 4-70 will not be interchangeable with it.

With this in mind, it is a great choice for full frame shooters who will do a lot of low light hand held ultra wide angle shooting - for them the additional cost may well be worth it. Its chief virtue is its better performance at f/2.8 (which the 17-40 doesn't have!) and f/4. The 1 6-35mm f/2.8 L II is a fine ultra wide lens on a full frame sensor camera. (Those are fine lenses for people shooting cropped sensor bodies - and either or both would be high on my list if I shot cropped sensor cameras.) Between the 17-40 f/4 L and the 16-35mm f/2.8 L, the choice is not about which lens is a better lens, but rather about how you will shoot. Since you have a full frame 5D2 camera, the EFS lenses are not an option - so rule out the 10-22 and the 17-55 lens you mentioned in your post. Ask ten photographers and you'll get nearly ten different answers.

I have both and I find myself shooting long lenses for landscape more frequently that ultra wide lenses. There is no rule that say, for example, wide lenses are better than long lenses for landscape. The 'best' way to figure out the 'best' landscape lens is to first think about how you shoot.

Canon mark 5d ii lenses