Upgrade the 17-40 to either the 16-35 2.8 or 16-35 F4. Both perform better.
I briefly had a 5ds and 100-400 mk2. It was a stellar lens. You should definitely buy this as well as it is an incredible lens £ for £ and designed around high pixel density cameras (which you have).
Have no doubt, buy with conviction and pride.
My 17-40 has served me well and it's still a nice lens. It's getting on though, not that that worries me, I just feel newer L lenses would be better on a newer body (5Div) although that body is starting to get on a bit too. I think it would be 16-35 f4 for me though, cracking lens and a bit cheaper than the 2.8, I have to factor that in as I'm looking at over £4k potentially for this upgrade, over 3 lenses. I can't see me using 2.8 for landscapes. I don't do astro, which is where 2.8 would come into its own. The 17-40 seems bad for CA, one thing I loath, as it either leaves a colour fringe on the RAW, or a halo, when removed with lens corrections, especially on horizons/where land meets sky. I know there's a workaround to remove it in PS, which I often do but nobody should have to do that with any L lens.
Hmmm... The want/need conundrum at its worst.
As always, it'll boil down to the cost to change and whether YOU can justify that cost to whoever it may concern.
What are the real world differences between the Mk 1 and Mk 2? If the design is the same but there are some fresh bells and whistles, I'd stick with the old lens but if there's been a real redesign, I'd be looking deeper to see if they were enough to make the change worth it. Do you have a decent real shop within striking distance? If so, do you have a good relationship with them? (I used to be able to buy 2nd hand lenses from a local shop with a few days approval.)
Thanks.
Steve raises a good point with newer lenses resolving newer sensors better. This would be enough for me to seriously consider (now) the 100-400 upgrade at least.
We have a WEX close by, although I'm not sure they would let me trial a lens. It migth be worth the ask though. I have a good relationship with
LCE but their nearest shop is Newcastle, a fair step that.
MKII is far superior to the MKI
Not what I wanted to hear.
*reaches for credit card*
Thanks Chris.
I changed my 100-400mm to the MKII and bought the 16-35mm F/4 (I also have the R7 on preorder)
The 100-400mm MKII is a significant upgrade to the MKI ... it is also pretty good with the Canon 14.x MK III for added reach
The 16-35mm f/4 is a superb lens,
I haven't changed my 24-105mm f/4 as I rarely (never) use it.
Thanks Mike.
I would consider changing my 2xMkiii for the 1.4x Mkiii as part of this upgrade.
Sounds like the upgrade is worthwhile IF you can sneak it past management!!!
I am the management, well, second in command to Litte Miss Powell.
Seriously though, Wifey is pretty cool with this kind of thing, I don't drink much and have never smoked, she'd rather see me get something out of it.
Tempting.
It would be the f4 16-35 though, despite the potential extra sharpness corner to corner, edge to edge of the 2.8, I think the F4 is way over and above my 17-40.
Well, as I recall there is little difference in appearance but IIRC there is a change from 'push/pull' zoom action to 'rotation' (has been some years since I had my Canon 100-400 IS zoom MK1 and then MK2.... so have I remembered that ok?)
So, depending on how observant the management is 'you' might it in under radar
PS on my Canon 5Dmk3 there was IMO a small but discernable difference in image quality between them. But the MK1 was no slouch!
Lol. Yes, the Mk1 is push pull. I've never really gellled with that but I'm mostly at 400 anyway, so once I lock it, not much changing of focal length occurs. The Mk2 is twist zoom.
I haven't used either but I'm presuming the 16-35 f4 represents better vfm; for landscape I can't think of many occasions I'd be using a fast lens wide open. However I'm sure there is a market for a fast wide angle - otherwise Canon wouldn't make one !! Plus with more modern cameras and software increasing the iso becomes less problematic
I think I'm sold on the F4. I can't really see the need for 2.8 that I would benefit from.
True - but I heard and would imagine that the 2.8 version has better centre to edge sharpness than the F4 and should
@Dale. ever fancy a dabble in astro, a 2.8 zoom has a start there. That said, I've heard no real complaints over the F4 version, but the 2.8 will be better. The one I've linked to is the latest greatest version 3 and it would be by all accounts a terrific lens.
The 2.8 is a great lens , by all accounts, especially the Mkiii. All things considered though, I think the F4 would suffice for my needs. Didn't Thomas Heaton use on on his 5Div?
Do it. You only live once . . .
This is true.
Trouble here is your thinking along the lines of a DSLR lens upgrade ,when perhaps you should jump a couple of generations and go straight to mirrorless , I know quiet a few friends that have ,some even changing brand loyalty to . ….to date I can’t think of any of them that having kept there old gear as a backup actually use it .
I changed from canikon to Olympus due to heart problems with a fair amount of trepidation at the time now 3 years later I wonder why I didn’t do it sooner
Not long ago, I considered Olympus. I ended up with a Fuji back then though, as I borrowed a friends X-Pro 1 and loved the sensor in that. I had my 7D at the time too and the Fuji was much cleaner. I ended up though staying with Canon, as I was heavily invested in Canon glass. I didn't have anything against Oly then and don't now, it's just circumstances dictate I stay Canon. Not long after, I bought the 5Div, which I still have and love.
I firmly believe mirrorless is the future, it's just a matter of time. I already have an R7 on pre order, with the adapter, so I can use my EF glass on it.
If/when the day comes, to change/upgrade my 5D, by then, I have little doubt, it will be for a mirrorless body.
Nice review on the 16.35 F2.8III
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Review | Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a thorough, real world review of the world class Canon 16-35L III wide angle lens
dustinabbott.net
Don't forget the tamron 15-30 - would prefer native glass for longevity etc but it's a very good bit of kit but lacks the ability for front mount filters, which is a big no from me. The two lens I've given links to are the complete imaging solution for a Canon DSLR shooter.
Once he goes mirrorless, EF to RF adapter and the lenses will perform flawlessly.
That review will be part of my research into all this now. I'm almost 100% decided on the 100-400 upgrade. What I'll be doing landscape lens wise isn't quite as clear cut at the moment, the 16-35 is a front runner but I'm not ruling out 3rd party glass at this stage.
That's a big 'IF' Steve. In my case I doubt ever . . .
I have dipped my toe in the mirrorless waters, previously owning a couple of Fuji X cameras, and now a Canon M5, all of which, I love(d). The histogram in the VF is a boon for me.
I can't wait to get my hands on the R7, and compare it directly with my 5Div. I know it's not quite as clear cut as that, being a crop sensor versus full frame, mirrorless versus DSLR etc but it might hint at what the future holds.
It's a fair bet as he said he had a R7 on pre-order
Yup, if Canon get their skates on and ship them, then yes, I'll soon have an R7. It's taking a while though, at this rate, there will be rumours of the R7Mk2.
No reason in Nikon land. 45mp in the D850 is the same 45mp in the Z7ii - even the Z9 doesn't have more. There is nothing in the Z7ii or Z9 that would benefit me over a D850. A 60mp sensor might...but not looking likely so far.
The R5 in Canon land is a more exciting camera than the 5d4 - more MP and better DR in an R5 over a 5d4 - you and I might not like the form of a mirrorless- but the sensor would be a lure.
It will be interesting to see how the R7 performs, versus the 5D. It's a new sensor, although more a revamp of the current 90D, 6DMkii sensor, I think. The real comparison for me though is how the R7 will compare against the sensor in my 7D. I no longer have the 7D, but I remember it well.
