Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!


randomrubble 13 3.0k 12 United Kingdom
9 Mar 2007 1:07AM
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...

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

pcheywood 12 1.3k England
9 Mar 2007 1:28AM
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 !

Kris_Dutson 15 8.2k 1 England
9 Mar 2007 9:24AM
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 15 383 Scotland
9 Mar 2007 10:19AM

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.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.