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

[PatrickZ]

Just got a 20d to replace my 50E. Using my 'old' lenses
- 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
- 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6

I want to buy a new lens to replace the wide angle on my 24-85 on the 20d and also to upgrade to a lens more suitable for low light conditions (I hate to flash). Next step would be replacing the 24-85 by the 24-70mm f/2.8 (when I have some money saved up again).

But for now two choices:

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

Major differences are of course price and f/2.8 vs f/4.

Is the difference worth the money? Advice is highly appreciated

[gramps]

When you need the 2.8 is sure is nice to have. But the 20D can handle a kick in the ISO without too much noise. Bottom line, I'd go with the 2.8

[johnellisphotography]

Check out this test:

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


If you really have themoney to blow... I'd say get the 16, but its really not worth double the price IMO. I've used the 16 and own the 17 and while the extra stop is nice, there is no real difference in quality(some debate this though). Its really up to you. I chose to get the 17-40 and 70-200 F4 for the price of the 16-35 and have been happy with both so far.

[PatrickZ]

You line of argument confuses me a bit.

You suggest the 2.8 but your remark on high ISO setting suggest the f/4 (compensating the loss of light).

Why then is the 2.8 the better choice?

[gramps]

You line of argument confuses me a bit.

You suggest the 2.8 but your remark on high ISO setting suggest the f/4 (compensating the loss of light).

Why then is the 2.8 the better choice?

The 2.8 gives you that much more to work with. Even with the 20D's ability to handle high ISO lens speed is very nice to have.

[cactusclay]

I think Gramps just means that it's nice to have the 2.8, when you need it, so the added high iso even helps more, then it does with the 17-40. If you are going to be shooting landscapes with a tripod a lot, then you might not miss the 2.8 so much, but if you plan on shooting more in low availible light, then you might like the added stop. I have the 17-40 and use it with a flash when I need to and haven't really felt like I needed the 2.8, but if someone were to give me one, I would take it. For low light conditions I use a 50 and a 85.

[Mike Panic]

keep in mind that lenses are generally not at their sharpest at wide open... usually at least 1/2 to one full stop from wide is where they start to shine... so if you forsee yourself shooting @ f/4 at all, get the 16-35

[Tom W]

My copy of the 16-35/2.8 was as sharp at f/2.8 as my 17-40 was at f/4. Others have seen slightly different results. Both are very good. I think that they are on a similar level of capability. There is copy-to-copy variance, but I don't think that its that great.

Bottom line: If you want/need the f/2.8 aperture, get the expensive one. If not, get the f/4.

[Citizensmith]

I chose to get the 17-40 and 70-200 F4 for the price of the 16-35 and have been happy with both so far.

That's where I went as well. You can ditch the 100-300 in favor of the 70-200 f/4 as well as get the 17-40. All for the cost of the 16-35. 1 stop of extra light, or a second stellar lens?

[DaveG]

Just got a 20d to replace my 50E. Using my 'old' lenses
- 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
- 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6

I want to buy a new lens to replace the wide angle on my 24-85 on the 20d and also to upgrade to a lens more suitable for low light conditions (I hate to flash). Next step would be replacing the 24-85 by the 24-70mm f/2.8 (when I have some money saved up again).

But for now two choices:

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

Major differences are of course price and f/2.8 vs f/4.

Is the difference worth the money? Advice is highly appreciated

If I could do all of this over again I'd get the 10-22 (since there's no realistic expectation about owning a 1.0 camera in the next three years), the 24-70 f2.8 L and then on from there. That gives me speed in the 24-70 range and super wide angle coverage where speed isn't all that important.

I have the 16-35 f2.8 and it's a fine fine lens. But it's effectively a 26 to 55 mm lens and that's not some place that I would want to spend money. I DID spend the money when there was nothing wider (I'm not counting the 14mm f2.8 ) that I could get for my 10D. I also have and like the 24-85 but with the 10-22/24-70 they would easily replace both the 16-35 AND the 24-85.

Make no mistake though. The 16-35 is a very good lens. I use it and love the results. And one of these days I will have a full frame DSLR and it'll go back to being a 16-35 so I don't think it was that bad a decision. It's just having the L quality in the 24-70 rather than the 16-35 would be a bit better right now.