16-35 vs 17-40: worth the extra $$ damage?

[Lightstream]

I'm a devoted ultrawide user who loves landscapes, and no full frame camera lens collection would be complete for me without my ultra wide. When I was an EF-S shooter the choice was simple: 10-22, end of story, f/8 and be there (f/8 also happens to give the best IQ on the 10-22 in the field, I find).

Now I'm presented with two choices and a somewhat tight budget. If cost was absolutely no object, this post would never have been written :D (buy both and go home being the solution)

I understand the primary difference between the 16-35 and the 17-40 is one extra stop and somewhere in the region of $700. Also, I notice a subtle but potentially significant difference - 16mm goes out to 108°10’ FOV, 17mm only goes out to 104°. I'm used to a 10mm EF-S, when cropped, goes to 107°30’.

Am I worrying too much about these subtle differences and is there anything else I should be concerned about? I am not being limited by the 10-22's aperture (3.5-4.5) at the moment, so I don't think f/4 will be a problem.

[morehtml]

I believe your 10-22 is equal to 16mm on the FF so 17mm is not quite as wide.

Do you plan on shooting inside without flash with it? If so maybe the 16-35 is right for you.

Otherwise besides the 1mm difference the 17-40 is almost identical in performance to the 10-22 you're used to except on the 5D is going to give you more detail obviously. And it has the constant f stop which I demand.

[hef]

Wait until you see the 16 on that 5d... whew!

[davidfig]

Seems to me there is one other thing to think about. Closest focus distance, for that beautiful flower that includes the mountain range all in focus.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

...and what are the CFD's on those two?

[morehtml]

...and what are the CFD's on those two?
.9 ft on the 16-35 and .92 on the 17-40? So big freaking deal?

Both go f22

[Lightstream]

"Close enough" :) but that is a good valid point. Thanks for helping me check up.

I am unlikely to need the 16-35 indoors with available light. Far more likely to find me using my 24-105 f/4L. When I did events coverage previously, I used to use my 350D, 17-85 and 430EX flash. The only part I didn't like was the f/5.6 aperture at the long end of the 350D. A true 24mm on FF should be wide enough for me, 28mm equiv. was wide enough already.


hef: would dearly love to..... the spirit is willing but the wallet is weak.. while I have no doubt the view would be breathtaking, I think the credit card bill would be aneurysm-inducing too :D

[ssim]

I love my 16-35. I've shot with a friends 17-40 on a few occasions and it is a very decent lens as well. They both have very solid reviews. Of course you will always find the odd user that will complain about their specific copy of their lens but this doesn't mean that all copies are bad.

You have to decide how often you will be shooting below f/4. If it is a significant amount of time then go for the 16-35, otherwise you would be ok with the 17-40. Is that 1mm worth the extra 700.00. Only you can decide this.

[Double Negative]

Yes. An extra 1mm might not seem like that much - but on the wide end, it most definitely makes a difference.

Plus the 16-35mm is f/2.8 whereas the 17-40mm is f/4.

Both are great lenses though.

[Lightstream]

The reviews have been telling me the same thing, that these two lenses are very close in quality. And truth to be told, as Canon lenses go, I have been lucky far more than not. I have bought at least half a dozen ones and they have always turned out good. I sincerely wish I could say the same thing with third party. The only Canon I've ever seen that was really outright bad was a 50 f/1.8 which I suspect has been abused or damaged given its very dubious history. It was unable to focus properly at any aperture.

1mm.. that's what I'm thinking, it would be tough to fork over this amount of money... it would be fiscally irresponsible. I don't find myself limited by the aperture of the 10-22, so f/4 seems good to me.

Looks like I'll have my 17-40 before the week is out..... :D :D :D

[Lord_Malone]

I will repeat what I have said in the past and has been echoed countless times on every forum pertaining to the subject of Canon lenses. I have owned and used both. Get the 17-40L unless you absolutely without a doubt need that extra stop. Judging by what you've already posted, you don't. If you need to go wider than 17mm, take a few steps back, recompose and shoot. The 17-40L should be a no brainer for you. ;)

EDIT: I should add that if you do decide to take the plunge and get the 16-35L anyway, you will find a use for f/2.8 and will start making excuses to take wide shots in less than desirable lighting conditions. ;) Like inside a cathedral or museum for example.

[Lightstream]

Thanks, I just read your review on FM. I appreciate the reminder on how easy it is, especially with a wide angle, to use the 'foot zoom'. For $700, I'd certainly put the feet to good use. I can probably pump up the ISO for super low light shots. Certainly agreed with you that the 16-35 inspires a great deal of lust.. the be-all-end-all ultrawide in Canon's arsenal.

[Dante King]

No one has mentioned depth of field control. 2.8 vs f4 is a difference. If you have the money spring for the 16 otherwise, go for the 17mm

[Tareq]

I like 16-35 more over of 17-40 even both are decend lenses.
I will plan to 1Ds Mark II, so i think 16-35 will be better choice for me. am i wrong?

[Double Negative]

I like 16-35 more over of 17-40 even both are decend lenses.
I will plan to 1Ds Mark II, so i think 16-35 will be better choice for me. am i wrong?
Either will work just fine on a 1DS2 and one won't be any better than the other except for the reasons already stated.

[Tapeman]

Many of us that have to deal with a budget have struggled with the 16-35 vs 17-40 choice. I'm glad I chose the 16-36 and have moved on to other ways to spend all my dough on photo gear. You won't regret getting the 16-35. You might regret getting the 17-40.

[Tareq]

Many of us that have to deal with a budget have struggled with the 16-35 vs 17-40 choice. I'm glad I chose the 16-36 and have moved on to other ways to spend all my dough on photo gear. You won't regret getting the 16-35. You might regret getting the 17-40.

so thats mean if money is not an issue then you will go for 16-35 definitely?
for me money is not an issue as long that one lens is cheaper than $2500.

[Double Negative]

so thats mean if money is not an issue then you will go for 16-35 definitely?
for me money is not an issue as long that one lens is cheaper than $2500.
Well, yeah. And the 16-35mm is about half that price.

[Tareq]

Well, yeah. And the 16-35mm is about half that price.

Then 16-35 will be my next lens.
Thank you

[Col_M]

One thing that does make me think is that many of the reviews i've seen online are done on crop sensors, so effectively only using the centre of the glass.
In the reviews using crop sensors the optical performance is very similar but this could be very different on a ff sensor that uses almost all of the available glass, does anyone have experience of both on ff?
Just wondering this as the OP has a 5D, so edge performance is a factor :)

[Transonic]

Have a look at this (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml) and ask yourself if it's worth it.

[Tom W]

Have a look at this (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml) and ask yourself if it's worth it.

I've owned both the 17-40 and 16-35. My results in terms of sharpness & color are the opposite of what was found on Luminous Landscape. Flare was similar - the 16-35 does have more flare than my 17-40 did. Both lenses are close, and I would suspect that copy-to-copy variences account for our different results. I wouldn't be unsatisfied with either. I'd still be shooting the 17-40 if my 16-35 hadn't proved to have better corner sharpness.

[Lightstream]

Looks like it is the 17-40 for me... :)

The extra $700 right now is just a little bit too difficult to swallow, so 17-40 it is. I'm going down to pester the local camera shop tomorrow and see the lens in person. I also found Canon's sample shot for the 5D, the one all of us were gawking at. Shot at f/8, the 17-40's EXTREME corner performance is very similar to my 10-22 at f/8. It also says quite a lot that Canon thought enough of the 17-40 to use it as the demo lens for the 5D when, given their arsenal, they could easily have picked ANYTHING, literally anything they make.

[ben_r_]

"Close enough" :) but that is a good valid point. Thanks for helping me check up.

I am unlikely to need the 16-35 indoors with available light. Far more likely to find me using my 24-105 f/4L. When I did events coverage previously, I used to use my 350D, 17-85 and 430EX flash. The only part I didn't like was the f/5.6 aperture at the long end of the 350D. A true 24mm on FF should be wide enough for me, 28mm equiv. was wide enough already.


hef: would dearly love to..... the spirit is willing but the wallet is weak.. while I have no doubt the view would be breathtaking, I think the credit card bill would be aneurysm-inducing too :D
Sorry to bump an old thread for no good reason, but I just had to comment on this:

"the spirit is willing but the wallet is weak.."

That is just WAY too funny!

Back to the topic, I decided long ago to go with the 16-35 II, but I will say that after having it for a year or so I have found that I never really use it at 2.8 as the DOF isnt enough, and for half the price is the extra 1mm really worth it? The only time I really use a lens this wide seems to be outdoors for landscapes (which it tends to be too wide for at 16mm anyway, and 2.8 is almost never needed for landscapes, Im always shooting f/8 or smaller) or indoors for fun just to see how much I can cram into one frame! On top of all that its really nice to have all your lenses use the same filter size (77mm) as opposed to the one over sized and over priced 82mm. Especially now that Im thinking of getting a filter system. The P series vs the Z series price wise for adapter and filters is a big difference.

Its got me thinking about selling my 16-35 II and two 82mm filters and getting a cheaper 17-40... For me that would be about $1250 for the sale of the lens, about $170 for the B+W KSM CPL, and probably $80 or so for the B+W MRC UV Haze filter. Thats about $1500 and I can pick up a brand new 17-40 for $650 right now from amazon (or cheaper elsewhere).

Decisions, decisions...

[wallybud]

I like 16-35 more over of 17-40 even both are decend lenses.
I will plan to 1Ds Mark II, so i think 16-35 will be better choice for me. am i wrong?

No, although the 17-40 will be fantastic on FF (which is what I will be using)...No one has stated that with FF you corners become very important. Especially for landscape work. You will no longer be shooting the sweet center of the lens and the 16-35II is a big improvement over the MarkI with respects to the corners/edges.

Im sure you can dig up comparisons of the 16-35II and 17-40 with respects to the corners on a FF sensor...I am pretty sure the 16-35 will take the cake. Are corners important to me? Hell yes...is it worth the extra money to me...hell no (most of that money is geared toward the 2.8 over F4 and I just don't need it) When I start making my money from landscapes Ill skip the 16-35II and pick up the new Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Distagon T as I manual focus all my work anyway;)

[Tareq]

No, although the 17-40 will be fantastic on FF (which is what I will be using)...No one has stated that with FF you corners become very important. Especially for landscape work. You will no longer be shooting the sweet center of the lens and the 16-35II is a big improvement over the MarkI with respects to the corners/edges.

Im sure you can dig up comparisons of the 16-35II and 17-40 with respects to the corners on a FF sensor...I am pretty sure the 16-35 will take the cake. Are corners important to me? Hell yes...is it worth the extra money to me...hell no (most of that money is geared toward the 2.8 over F4 and I just don't need it) When I start making my money from landscapes Ill skip the 16-35II and pick up the new Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Distagon T as I manual focus all my work anyway;)

Now i have 1Ds MarkIII, didn't try 16-35L mk1 yet, but i don't have any more time to decide for MKII, even no time to replace it, i will be very happy with 16-35L mk1 and i will do alot of nice shots and not worry if i don't have mk2.

[wallybud]

Sorry Tareq I just thought you were asking about the 17-40 and 16-35. I also didn't even think you meant the MKI, I guess I just assumed MKII...but you know what happens when you assume ;)

[JayCee Images]

I too was torn between the two...but the fact that it had a tad more reach, less flare and was several hundreds cheaper sealed the deal on my 17-40!

[jacobsen1]

I've owned both and sold the 16-35II to go back to the 17-40. I find the 17-40 to be as good or better optically and it's smaller, lighter and less expensive. If you NEED 2.8, then yeah, get the 16-35II, but otherwise 17mm should be wide enough (and when it's not I use my 15mm FE). Also, FYI, if you didn't already know, the 16-35II is a 82mm thread, which is a giant PITA for filters since you're a landscaper.

[jacuff]

Have a look at this (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml) and ask yourself if it's worth it.

Just to note: That review compares the 17-40mm f/4L to the 16-35mm f/2.8L, not the 16-35mm f/2.8L II (released in 2007). It's really good to look at when comparing whether to get a used Mark I version of the 16-35mm f/2.8L or the 17-40mm f/4L, but not fair since my experience is that the 16-35mm f/2.8L II equals or betters the image quality of the 17-40mm f/4L.

I recently sold my 17-40mm f/4L since I purchased the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. If I didn't need the 16-35mm for indoors, I'd have stuck with the 17-40mm. I would have kept both, but decided to sell the 17-40mm to help with the new circular polarizer and neutral density filters I need to buy in the 82mm thread. That's another thing to keep in mind. It uses an 82mm filter thread, so you might have to buy new filters. The older version of the lens used the "standard" 77mm filter thread.

Sorry... didn't realize this was an old thread someone bumped. At the time, I guess the 16-35mm f/2.8L was still the original, so the reply was fair... but for those looking at it now, there is a Mark II version of the lens out, so they should consider it over the original.

[wallybud]

Just to note: That review compares the 17-40mm f/4L to the 16-35mm f/2.8L, not the 16-35mm f/2.8L II (released in 2007). It's really good to look at when comparing whether to get a used Mark I version of the 16-35mm f/2.8L or the 17-40mm f/4L, but not fair since my experience is that the 16-35mm f/2.8L II equals or betters the image quality of the 17-40mm f/4L.

I recently sold my 17-40mm f/4L since I purchased the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. If I didn't need the 16-35mm for indoors, I'd have stuck with the 17-40mm. I would have kept both, but decided to sell the 17-40mm to help with the new circular polarizer and neutral density filters I need to buy in the 82mm thread. That's another thing to keep in mind. It uses an 82mm filter thread, so you might have to buy new filters. The older version of the lens used the "standard" 77mm filter thread.

Sorry... didn't realize this was an old thread someone bumped. At the time, I guess the 16-35mm f/2.8L was still the original, so the reply was fair... but for those looking at it now, there is a Mark II version of the lens out, so they should consider it over the original.


You would only have to buy a new polarizer and a new adapter ring, not all new filters...well unless you use all screw on kind in which case you would lol

[jacobsen1]

have you priced 82mm polarizers though? :lol:

[wallybud]

it comes with the territory ;) chances are if your using a polarizer your not shooting indoors at f2.8 and if you don't need 2.8 you mid as well get the 17-40 ;) but thats EVERYTHING aside hahah bare bones

[leninglass]

FFFFFF*******k! I can't decide. LOL! I need a 2.8 but I once owned a Sigma 10-22 .. F/4 didnt seem fast enough for me and I barely used it. But now I am trying to get more in to artistic feel of wedding photography and I am needing a wide lens again. But I am scared that F/4 just wont do it for me. but 800$ more for a stop faster .. HMMMM!!!

[TheHoff]

If you're going to use the lens indoors, sometimes without flash, yes, the 2.8 is worth it.

[grego]

FFFFFF*******k! I can't decide. LOL! I need a 2.8 but I once owned a Sigma 10-22 .. F/4 didnt seem fast enough for me and I barely used it. But now I am trying to get more in to artistic feel of wedding photography and I am needing a wide lens again. But I am scared that F/4 just wont do it for me. but 800$ more for a stop faster .. HMMMM!!!

Well if you are doing wedding photography and want to be able to create smaller DOFs and shoot in lower light, then you know what you are paying for. For outdoors and landscape, you can't go wrong with f/4.

[Tareq]

And thats why i've got 16-35 for 2.8, i know that sooner or later i will use this lens indoors where it is low light and i may not use the flash, i pay for what i want to get, and 17-40 is still a great lens but has its limit as well.