Choosing between Canon 16-35L and 17-40L

[imago57]

Hello and thank you to all who will decide to help me with this question.
I want to buy a good quality wide angle zoom for my D60, and I have heard great things said about the performance of the Canon 16-35 L . I also heard good things about the 17-40 L . The actual difference in FL is less important to me than sharpness and speed. I wonder if the difference in performance is worth the extra $ in the price.
Please give me your first hand experience with these 2 lenses...the ideal would be someone who has used them both.

Thanks again to all who will answer.

Max

[ssim]

I have the 16-35 and I really like it. I did take it into Canon (as I have all my lenses) and had it calibrated to my 10D. It is sharp and it returns good color. I haven't got any experience with the 17-40. I researched both lenses before going to the 16-35 and this was based on reviews that I had read at that point in time.

Here is a sample:

http://www.pbase.com/image/21350625.jpg

[imago57]

Thanks for your input. Can you please elaborate on the calibration issue? Its a first for me.

Thanks.

[CyberDyneSystems]

imago57 wrote:
Thanks for your input. Can you please elaborate on the calibration issue? Its a first for me.

Thanks.

See this thread! :)


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18620#102861

[ilya]

One question is what camera? If its a 1Ds, I understand that you'll get much better results with 16-35. If its 10D, many say that the 17-40 actually works better then the 16-35.

Is price an object? The 16-35 is twice the price. Based on research I've done, its definitely not twice as nice. I love my 17-40.

Check out this link for a side by side

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

[Webster]

In the long run it seems obvious to me that improvements in high ISO quality will make fast glass less important. So spending twice as much to get a few stops may not make all that much sense.

Of course, the eternal caveats remain true:

The intersection of the set of things that are obvious to me and the set of things that are not true is embarrassingly large.

While your investment in glass will by far outlive your investment in body, you should probably still buy for current need rather than for some unknown future.

Did I just caveat my comment into meaninglessness?

[Vegas Poboy]

If you're wanting to save money and don't need the extra stop go with the 17-40mm f4.0. Great lens and money saved to buy other equipment.

[CyberDyneSystems]

webster wrote:

......Of course, the eternal caveats remain true:

The intersection of the set of things that are obvious to me and the set of things that are not true is embarrassingly large.....



!!!!!:D Curently cleaning the soda I spit off of my monitor!

hahahaha funnies t thing I've read in weeks :)

[mtimperman]

I have owned the 16-35 for about two months. Been very satisfied with it. I like the speed, especially being able to use in moderatel light situations without pushing ISO setting of the 10D.

[QueenChatty]

One question is what camera? If its a 1Ds, I understand that you'll get much better results with 16-35. If its 10D, many say that the 17-40 actually works better then the 16-35.

Is price an object? The 16-35 is twice the price. Based on research I've done, its definitely not twice as nice. I love my 17-40.

Check out this link for a side by side

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
My thoughts after perusing that article are that i would stick with the 17-40!
The only thing that I have to question is the use of 2.8 vs F4.....since I have not taken very many landscape photos I'm not sure if that really comes into play....for instance how many landscape shots are taken at 2.8?

[gonzogolf]

My thoughts after perusing that article are that i would stick with the 17-40!
The only thing that I have to question is the use of 2.8 vs F4.....since I have not taken very many landscape photos I'm not sure if that really comes into play....for instance how many landscape shots are taken at 2.8?
Holy 8 year old thread revive batman.....

[QueenChatty]

See this thread! :)


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18620#102861

That link for Roger is dead...just gives a 404 error.

[QueenChatty]

Holy 8 year old thread revive batman.....
It doesn't mean the information isn't the same!!

[kf095]

This is why it is on Cameras forum. I guess back in 2003 it was just one forum at POTN.
Back in 2003 I was happy user of film Rebel with kit lens and nothing else !

[nick.photo]

It doesn't mean the information isn't the same!!

True, the information is the same as it was back in 2003, but it isn't especially relevant since the D60 and the 16-35 L have both been out of production for quite a while. :)

[wfarrell4]

If you need 2.8 than you need 2.8. IMO, wide angle lenses like this are for landscapes where you will most likely be stopping down. If at night, both are going to need a tripod and both will deliver good results.

[S.Horton]

Time travel thread.

[robbym]

I've owned both and sold the 16-35L. Main reason 17-40L provides excellent IQ while being smaller and lighter and I didn't need f/2.8 for my wide shots. Aperture is really the key thing here, if you don't need it don't waste your money.