Which wide angle zoom rental for Wyoming trip?

I'm going to Jackson in early July and looking at renting either the canon 17-40/f4 L or the 16-35/f2.8 L MkII. I'm thinking that the extra stop on the 16-35 might be nice for grabbing those shots while out walking with the family (no tripod). Or maybe I won't really need the extra stop? What are your opinions? Also wondering what the sharpness is like between the two. The 16-35 MkII is twice as much to rent.
Thanks for your help,
Dave

The 16-35 MkII has not been around for very long so it's hard to find references but for what it's worth I'm very happy with the sharpness on my 17-40. Personally I wouldn't pay twice for the extra stop.

Guy

If you shoot wide-angle grab shots at f2.8, they're not going to look great anyway. And even wide-open, which you should avoid for most images, a quick adjustment of the ISO will let f4 lens match the shutter speed of the f2.8.

Have to laugh at your reply there Cliff. I'm still shooting some good ol' velvia out of an EOS 3!! Stupid me didn't even stop and think fhat for landscapes I'm going to stop down anyway for DOF. Proably go with the 17-40 then.

Thanks,
Dave

If you're looking for grab shots then maybe an IS lens might be your thing.

The f2.8 comes into play for either portraits or night shooting. How many portraits do you think you might do with this thing? Do you shoot at night much? One other thing I'll mention. Have you had much experience with a wider lens like this? I pretty much avoid taking gear that I'm not familiar with on an important trip.


Kent in SD

"Have to laugh at your reply there Cliff. I'm still shooting some good ol' velvia out of an EOS 3!!"

I love Velvia, and it pushes one stop to ISO 80 very nicely, but if you want to keep your family, don't use it to photograph them. Pick a less saturated, more neutral film. Also, while I use a 17-40 for people and landscape images all the time, wide-angle is seldom the most flattering choice for family images. The 17-40 is a nice lens and priced attractively. It gets criticized for distortion of horizons, which it can certainly do, but I seldom find it objectionable. The 16-35 is said to be better in that regard.

Wedding and event photographers shoot the 16-35 at people all the time. Just be sure you aren't so close to someone that their features are exagerated. The 16-35 is one of my "if you could only take two lenses" lenses, the other being a 70-200 IS. I'm not sure if the 16-35 II has begun shipping yet so you might be renting the model I have.

Hi David,
I just received the Canon 16-35 II Lens. I tried it the other day and it's a fantastic lens.
Gene, Andover, NJ

I'm going to be doing exclusively landscape with this lens. Anyone have suggestions on how to minimize horizon distortion? I'm not familiar with this term so I'll look it up right now.
Dave

I'm going to be doing exclusively landscape with this lens. Anyone have suggestions on how to minimize horizon distortion? I'm not familiar with this term so I'll look it up right now.
Dave