EF 17-40 f/4L vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L

[tommykjensen]

I am potentially looking for a replacement of the kitlens for my 300D and consider these 2 lenses:

EF 17-40 f/4L
EF 16-35 f/2.8L

Which is the best?

[dtrayers]

Look HERE (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml).

If cost is any factor then the 17-40 is the lens to get.

[DaveG]

I am potentially looking for a replacement of the kitlens for my 300D and consider these 2 lenses:

EF 17-40 f/4L
EF 16-35 f/2.8L

Which is the best?

To me the extra stop was paramount in my decision. I worked with a 20mm f4 lens for years and could barely see through it in dark inside venues. I do a lot of commercial conference event work, where they make and want photographs of various presentations, and I just needed something faster than f4. Now focusing isn't a big problem anymore as the camera and flash take care of that flawlessly. But for composition the f2.8 still makes a big difference.

Optically I would think that the f4 is sharper. There's no reason to think otherwise. It's a newer design and there should be less compromise in the speed or sharpness debate. But that's also on an optical bench and I doubt it anyone would see much difference in the real world.

In any case I would choose the 16-35 all over again.

[Pekka]

To me the extra stop was paramount in my decision. I worked with a 20mm f4 lens for years and could barely see through it in dark inside venues. I do a lot of commercial conference event work, where they make and want photographs of various presentations, and I just needed something faster than f4. Now focusing isn't a big problem anymore as the camera and flash take care of that flawlessly. But for composition the f2.8 still makes a big difference.

I don't see any problem in shooting/viewing in low light with 17-40. Also, Mark II is such a noise free camera that 4 vs. 2.8 does not really make any difference - wider apertures do make a difference with longer lenses but I feel that with wide angle I do not need such fast shutter speeds. Also, I tend to go for f4 or more for most shots with Sigma 20/2.8 and Sigma 14/2.8 anyway because of the "nature" of the wide angle shots (would love to have 24/1.4L as an artsy alternative, though). Weight is also an issue because I will nevertheless always carry 70-200/2.8L and 85/1.2 among others. So to me 17-40 is quite good choice and I like it a lot.

[DaveG]

To me the extra stop was paramount in my decision. I worked with a 20mm f4 lens for years and could barely see through it in dark inside venues. I do a lot of commercial conference event work, where they make and want photographs of various presentations, and I just needed something faster than f4. Now focusing isn't a big problem anymore as the camera and flash take care of that flawlessly. But for composition the f2.8 still makes a big difference.

I don't see any problem in shooting/viewing in low light with 17-40. Also, Mark II is such a noise free camera that 4 vs. 2.8 does not really make any difference - wider apertures do make a difference with longer lenses but I feel that with wide angle I do not need such fast shutter speeds. Also, I tend to go for f4 or more for most shots with Sigma 20/2.8 and Sigma 14/2.8 anyway because of the "nature" of the wide angle shots (would love to have 24/1.4L as an artsy alternative, though). Weight is also an issue because I will nevertheless always carry 70-200/2.8L and 85/1.2 among others. So to me 17-40 is quite good choice and I like it a lot.



I did a shot last week where the exposure was 1/8 @ f2.8 with ISO 400. They were giving out awards and that was the ambient light level, the morons. So for me in that situation the f2.8 was dark enough.

But let me get this straight: You have a 70-200 f2.8, an 85 f1.2, and want a 24 f1.4, but don't see any advantage of the 16-36 f2.8 over the f4. Why is the noise OK with the 17-40 but not with an 85mm f1.8? Why don't you have a 70-200 f4? Same as the rest of us, speed, speed, speed. Surely the Mark II is SOMEWHAT better at ISO 800 than ISO 1600 and that's where that extra stop comes in handy.

[tommykjensen]

Hmmmm, are You intentionally trying to make it difficult for me to choose :lol:

Just kidding.... But it looks like a difficult decision.

At this time I am not looking at the cost as a deciding factor.

[Pekka]

But let me get this straight: You have a 70-200 f2.8, an 85 f1.2, and want a 24 f1.4, but don't see any advantage of the 16-36 f2.8 over the f4. Why is the noise OK with the 17-40 but not with an 85mm f1.8? Why don't you have a 70-200 f4? Same as the rest of us, speed, speed, speed. Surely the Mark II is SOMEWHAT better at ISO 800 than ISO 1600 and that's where that extra stop comes in handy.

Of course 2.8 is nice and good, but as I explained I have seen a pattern in way I shoot wide angle and it's about 98% f4 or up. I don't want to buy 16-35 just because it's cooler to have - my other fast lenses are there for specific reasons and purposes, too. I have Sigma 20/1.8 if I really need low light wide angle but that is not near as sharp wide open as 24/1.4L which I would like to have because in characteristics and "feel" it is in same genre as 85/1.2. I also have Sigma 14/2.8 which I practically never shoot at 2.8 so if Canon ever will make 14/4L or 12/4L I'd be very interested.

[DaveG]

But let me get this straight: You have a 70-200 f2.8, an 85 f1.2, and want a 24 f1.4, but don't see any advantage of the 16-36 f2.8 over the f4. Why is the noise OK with the 17-40 but not with an 85mm f1.8? Why don't you have a 70-200 f4? Same as the rest of us, speed, speed, speed. Surely the Mark II is SOMEWHAT better at ISO 800 than ISO 1600 and that's where that extra stop comes in handy.

Of course 2.8 is nice and good, but as I explained I have seen a pattern in way I shoot wide angle and it's about 98% f4 or up. I don't want to buy 16-35 just because it's cooler to have - my other fast lenses are there for specific reasons and purposes, too. I have Sigma 20/1.8 if I really need low light wide angle but that is not near as sharp wide open as 24/1.4L which I would like to have because in characteristics and "feel" it is in same genre as 85/1.2. I also have Sigma 14/2.8 which I practically never shoot at 2.8 so if Canon ever will make 14/4L or 12/4L I'd be very interested.

But for those of us with only ONE super wide angle then it might be wiser to get the speed in that one lens, don't you think. And the noise IS an issue when we use 10D's rather than the Mark II.

[Qurlyjoe]

If the cost is truly not a factor, then read the article mentioned by Dtrayers, paying attention to the parts where the reviewer mentions the good and bad of each, and then choose based on how your needs and usage habits intersect with those points.

Easy for me to say, eh?

[tommykjensen]

If the cost is truly not a factor, then read the article mentioned by Dtrayers, paying attention to the parts where the reviewer mentions the good and bad of each, and then choose based on how your needs and usage habits intersect with those points.


I did, thats why its difficult to decide :?

[tommykjensen]

Actually what I lack from the test is some sample photos shot with the 16-35 at 2.8 to see what it is capable of with that extra stop.

DaveG do You have some samples You can show me? Or anyone else have samples?

[Jesper]

I have the 17-40 f/4 L. As you can see from the review on Luminous Landscape, the difference in optical quality between the two lenses is very small. Sometimes the 17-40 seems to be better, sometimes the 16-35.

Note that the 16-35 is about twice the price of the 17-40, and the only real difference is one extra stop - f/2.8 vs f/4. For me, just that one extra stop is absolutely not worth the huge price difference of about $700. Ofcourse, your criteria might be different.

[tommykjensen]

I realise the difference in price thats why I would like to see samples from the 16-35 mm at 2.8 in low light conditions (did add that on initial request)

[who10]

I realise the difference in price thats why I would like to see samples from the 16-35 mm at 2.8 in low light conditions (did add that on initial request)

Tommy, Here's a candid taken in ambient light at f4 800 ISO. When I get home I'll post a couple taken at f2.8 16mm and f2.8 35mm.

I love this lens...


David

http://www.haskellct.com/photos/LowLight800ISO.jpg

[who10]

Canon 10D with 16-35L2.8 all ISO 800

f2.8
http://www.haskellct.com/photos/CRW_3192.jpg
f2.8
http://www.haskellct.com/photos/CRW_3197.jpg

f3.5
http://www.haskellct.com/photos/CRW_3242.jpg

[Pekka]

See some 17-40 comments here:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=248322&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

[Steveo31]

Isn't it a rule that the more you stop down, the less sharp the image becomes? I've been out of the game for a bit...

If that is the case, then the f/4 would be "better" as you stop down less to get to the same f/stop. f/4-f/11 is 3 stops, while f/2.8-f/11 is 4.

[DaveG]

Isn't it a rule that the more you stop down, the less sharp the image becomes? I've been out of the game for a bit...

If that is the case, then the f/4 would be "better" as you stop down less to get to the same f/stop. f/4-f/11 is 3 stops, while f/2.8-f/11 is 4.

The rule (such as it is) is that middle apertures are better than wide open or fully closed down. With the f4 lens the middle apertures are going to be f8, & f11 or so, while with the f2.8 lens they start at f5.6. Diffraction is the problem when the aperture is fully - or almost fully - closed.

The problem is that there are so many more variables. Do you select a slower shutterspeed (and get some camera blur) in order to use a more optimal aperture? If the f5.6 is a middle aperture with the f2.8 is that a better aperture than f5.6 on the f4? Maybe but I bet it'd take an optical bench to confirm it.

So I use middle apertures when I can, and don't worry about it too much otherwise.

[Whaler]

For the price of the 16-35 f/2.8 "L" you could buy the 17-40 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4. Both "L"s both GREAT lens. :)

[Mike H]

For the price of the 16-35 f/2.8 "L" you could buy the 17-40 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4. Both "L"s both GREAT lens. :)

You certainly need to consider that option as well. It all really depends on what you are shooting. If you are like many people, the number of times that you would get use out of the superb 70-200/4L will exceed the number of times you will need the f/2.8 setting on the super wide angle lens.

Again, it depends on what you normally shoot. If you make a living shooting low light events like weddings, it's a no-brainer in favor of the faster lens. It's a different story if you're like me and mainly use your wide angle to shoot outdoor events in the middle of the day.

Mike H

[tommykjensen]

I already have the 70-200/4L :D

I think it will be the 17-40/4L

[roanjohn]

I think it will be the 17-40/4L

:D

Good choice!!!

Ro1