Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0


Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

9 Mar 2007 - 1:07 AM

On the 16-35 - I've got 3 lenses that cover 24mm and the 16-35 is the preferred option, it's sharper than my 24 TS-E and the colour rendition is superb. At 24mm I'd prefer it over the 24-74 as well. I've not tried a 17-40 so it may be sharper, but I've no complaints on the 16-35.

Apart from the way they snap when they fall off a tripod...

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
9 Mar 2007 - 1:07 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

pcheywood  91300 forum posts England
9 Mar 2007 - 1:28 AM

I nearly sold my Stigma 12-24 also at one point (when I first got my 16-35, glad I didn't), it still adds a whole new dimension to any images. Go for it Jasper66, you're going to have a sh*tload of problems with the Stigma, but hey, they might just be worth it !


9 Mar 2007 - 9:24 AM

As Andy says the 17-40 will do - it does for me on my 5D.

The 16-35 will give an extra stop but for landscapes only you don't really need it, so the extra expense is probably unjustified.

As for the Stigma, well, why spoil the ship? Wink

Ewan  11381 forum posts Scotland
9 Mar 2007 - 10:19 AM

Quote: As Andy says the 17-40 will do - it does for me on my 5D.

Ditto - I've been using this combination for about 9 months and am very pleased with it.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.