PDA

View Full Version : 17-40L vs 16-35L


DocFrankenstein
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 12:11
17-40 L
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/279582.jpg

While this is an excellent ultra-wide zoom lens for analogue (film) SLR cameras, this lens is especially well suited for digital SLR cameras which usually have an imaging sensor size smaller than the 35mm format. When used with such digital SLR cameras these focal lengths can give an angle of view approximately equivalent to that of a 28-70mm lens used on a 35mm camera, which makes it the ideal standard zoom lens.

All of the "L" lenses deliver optical performance equal to similiar fixed focal length lenses, and the USM lenses do this with silent, high-speed focusing. Distortions and aberrations are remarkably small for a lens of such amazing capabilities.

Key Features
• Rear gelatin filter slot accepts up to three gel filters, allowing for a multitude of different combinations
• Lens retains the popular 77mm filter size shared by other Canon "L" zoom lenses
• Lens uses three aspheric elements of two different types, while Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass is used to prevent the chromatic aberrations that often can degrade the subject edge clarity
• Entirely internal focusing and zooming movement
• Dust and moisture resistance is equal to the professional levels of the EOS 1-V and 1-D cameras
• Circular aperture diaphragm produces brilliant out-of-focus characteristics

Filter Size 77mm (gelatin filter slot on the rear of lens accepts up to three gel filters)
f/Stop Range 4-22
Minimum Focus Distance 11" (28 cm)
Magnification 1:4
Zoom/Focus Control Two-touch
Angle of View 104-57°
Groups/Elements 9/12
Length 3.8" (97mm)
Maximum Diameter 3.3" (83.5mm)
Weight 17.5 oz (500g)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/239648.jpg

Developed for the demands of digital photographers, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM wideangle improves on its predecessor with a shorter beginning focal length, better close focusing capability & improved peripheral brightness in the image corners. All of the "L" lenses deliver optical performance equal to similiar fixed focal lengths lenses, and the USM lenses do this with silent, high-speed focusing. Distortions and aberrations are remarkably small for a lens of such amazing capabilities.

Key Features
• Rear gelatin filter slot
• Lens retains the popular 77mm filter size shared by other Canon "L" zoom lenses
• Better close focusing than the 17-35mm f/2.8 "L" predecessor
• Entirely internal focusing and zooming movement
• Dust and moisture resistance is equal to the levels of the EOS 1-V and 1-D cameras
• Circular aperture diaphragm produces brilliant out-of-focus characteristics

Filter Size 77mm (gelatin filter slot on the rear of lens)
f/Stop Range 2.8-22
Minimum Focus Distance 0.9'
Magnification 1:4.5
Zoom/Focus Control Two-touch
Angle of View 108-63°
Groups/Elements 10/14
Length 4.0"
Maximum Diameter 3.3"
Weight 1.32 lb

DocFrankenstein
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 12:13
So, what are your experiences with those? Which one is sharper?

I'm guessing it's gonna be used indoors A LOT, so an extra stop would be welcome. :? But the price is really decent.

Which one is "better"? :twisted:

Jon
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 12:17
You looked here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40173) yet? Probably a few more threads on it too . . .

Quinn Porter
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 13:29
Some will say the 16-35 is better, while others will swear by the 17-40. The reality is that these two lenses are very, very close optically, so you can disregard this consideration when deciding between these two lenses (much like the 70-200 2.8 and 4). Unless you know that you will regularly need the 2.8, it is difficult to justify the much higher price for the 16-35. Another option would be to buy the 17-40 and a fast prime like the Sigma 20mm 1.8. I bought this prime in excellent condition on ebay for less than $200 and routinely use it indoors with no flash. It’s soft at 1.8, but useable. At 2.8 it’s very good. Overall I'm very happy with it.

jgbeam
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 14:33
Why limit yourself? A 12-24 can be so much fun! :lol:

http://www.imagevenue.com/host/web1/d77ac_LC_0003_RT8.jpg

Both Canons are a bit sharper than the Sigma, but not by much. This shot is pretty extreme, and just for kicks, but I wouldn't trade the range for a tad more detail.

Jim

Whaler
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 15:37
For the price of the 16-35 f/2.8 L you can almost buy the 17-40 f/4 L & a 70-200 f/4 L. :D

dialdn
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 20:04
Quick question.

What would be better for Northen Lights shots? I have read the 16-35 is the winner due to the 2.8. I have a scope with a tracking system and will piggy back for northern lights and general astrophotography.

Thoughts, experiences?

D

DocFrankenstein
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 21:38
For the price of the 16-35 f/2.8 L you can almost buy the 17-40 f/4 L & a 70-200 f/4 L. :D
I have the f/2.8... and I'm using the extra stop a lot, so I am hesitating. I could get the 17-40 now, but I'd have to wait for 16-35 quite a bit. :?

Thanks for the link Jon