17-40L vs. 16-35L vs. 17-35L Which one? Why?

[Qweevox]

Ok, give me your honest opinions and experiences: The Canon 17-40L or the Canon 16-35L or the Canon 17-35L. What did you like about each and what did you dislike about each?

Thanks

[raylks]

What subject you are shooting for?
If you shoot landscape, then fast lens is not necessary and you may opt for a slower lens, ie, 17-40mm f4L.
However you wanna shoot event in low light using wide angle lens, then speed is important. You shall choose fast lens such as 16-35mm or 17-35L f2.8L.
But 16-35mm is the successor lens of 17-35mm, I would say if you choose fast lens, then the former is more preferred.

[cactusclay]

There are some pretty good reviews out there comparing the two newer ones, the old 17-35 had lower ratings. I own the 17-40 and it's an excellent lens, that just happens to be for sale, to fund a longer lens.

[Tom W]

I've read that the 16-35 and 17-40 are both considered better than the older 17-35. I had a 17-40 and it was a great performer. I opted to upgrade to the faster 16-35, and it, too, is a great lens. The 17-40 might have the edge at the wider end for corner sharpness, but not by much. Its hard for me to compare as I used the 17-40 on my old 10D, but changed lenses about the same time I changed to the 1D2 camera, which has a different sensor size. I do know that both lenses have given me some outdoor images that really gel.

The two questions you should ask yourself is how much money do you want to spend, and do you need f/2.8. If you don't need the faster aperture, get the 17-40.

Both are good lenses.

[Sean-Mcr]

I bought the 16-35 last week and while i've not really had much of a chance to test it as yet. From the few shots i've got to take i know itS better suited to me as i like available light shots.

[mgash]

both are great lenses, you just need to decide if the F2.8 is worth the extra money. If it were me I would get the 17-40. But, i am an outdoor photographer and don't need the extra speed.

[roanjohn]

I wouldn't even consider the 17-35...........If you are on a budget, get the 17-40 and an external flash.........If you have tons of cash and hate using flash, then get the 16-35. I'd say that you really can't go wrong with both.............so buy depending on your budget.

Ro1

[dialdn]

I don't mean to hijack, but what would be best for night/long exposure astrophotography?

I had my eye on the 17-40 but is there any worth going to the 16-35 for the reason I mention above?

D

[Jon]

What, specifically, are you trying to achieve in your night photography?

[dialdn]

Some northern lights but also some general wide angle star view. I have a 6" newtonian reflector with a tracking system. So I will piggyback for the star photos.

D

[Jon]

The 16-35. The physical aperture's better (so's the f/stop, but for astro, as you know, the physical aperture's what's critical).

OBTW - Seen this (http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/astro/index-e.html)?

[dialdn]

Damn, thought I could get away with less $. Oh well, that's ok.

Great site! Thanks. I have done a number of pics using my old G2 and a Scopetronix Maxview 40 and they worked out ok.

D

[Jon]

Well, it's only 4.25 (17 mm) vs 5.71 (16 mm) and 10 mm (40) vs. 12.5 (35) mm apertures. The "nifty fifty" will give you a 25 mm aperture. Of course, since you have a guide system, the aperture may not be as important to you as if you were shooting one thing while observing another.

[SeanH]

IMO I would just get the 10-22. Considering the 17 with the 1.6 factor is only a 28mm, why waste your time. If your gonna go wide........then go WIDE

[Phil V]

The 17-40 is reputedly close to the 16-35. If you want low light why spend so much on 2.8, the Sigma 20mm 1.8 is supposed to be great and I'm hoping for one of those and the Sigma 30 1.4 when it finally appears.

[Andy_T]

Let's make it even more complicated - there is also an older 20-35/2.8 L.

What makes it interesting for me is that I have seen quite a few samples in good condition trade hands on eBay for $400~$450 ... not bad at all for a constant f/2.8 L lens :p

Does anyone have experience with this lens?

Best regards,
Andy

[thomasrhee]

IMO, the 17-35 is a step down in image quality from either the 17-40 or the 16-35. Considering that the used price on a 17-35 is more expensive than a new 17-40, I would avoid the 17-35.

That leaves the choice between the 17-40 or the 16-35. Neither lens is superior to the other in overall image quality. The main differences are going to be f2.8 vs f4, price, and size/weight.

I bought the 17-40 myself for the above reasons and have no regrets. I didn't absolutely need the extra stop, it's about half the price and is slightly smaller and lighter.

[Skip Souza]

Basically you pay twice the money for twice the light. Depends on what you need.

[motion_projekt]

IMO I would just get the 10-22. Considering the 17 with the 1.6 factor is only a 28mm, why waste your time. If your gonna go wide........then go WIDE


L glass baby...thats one of many many reasons to go with the L...plus the optics are better, color's better, sharper IQ...can;t forget one of the biggest reasosn..the awesomely crazy fast aperture...IMO you go for the the 10-22...you're gonna wish you went with the 16-35. if you want the TRUE wide angle...then shoot...go buy a FF camera. same idea,

//happy shooting

[Andy_T]

L glass baby...thats one of many many reasons to go with the L...plus the optics are better, color's better, sharper IQ...

Motion_project,
do you have any sources (comparison 10-22 / 17-40) backing up this opinion you could link?
From all I have heard about the 10-22 (e.g: this review (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm)), its optics are right there with the L crowd.

can't forget one of the biggest reasosn..the awesomely crazy fast aperture...

You are right, constant f/4 as opposed to f/3.5-4.5 :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[bad_doggie]

L glass baby...thats one of many many reasons to go with the L...plus the optics are better, color's better, sharper IQ...can;t forget one of the biggest reasosn..the awesomely crazy fast aperture...IMO you go for the the 10-22...you're gonna wish you went with the 16-35. if you want the TRUE wide angle...then shoot...go buy a FF camera. same idea,


this kind of L-bigotry is really silly and not helpful.

to the OP: the 10-22 is a great lens the sigma 10-20 is supposed to be competitive at a lower price point, but i've never tried it.

[Thornfield]

Basically you pay twice the money for twice the light. Depends on what you need.

My sentiments exactly. Which is why I bought the 17-40 as it's a walk about lens. The trade off is the loss of a stop but as a walk about I need the depth of field so normaly shoot at f8-f11 which makes this lens extremely sharp.
And ideal for my use.
As per usual it's " horses for courses"

[spaced]

Personal preference really. Try em out'

[Lord_Malone]

Having owned the 17-40L, I traded up for the 16-35L. I don't use the WA zoom primarily for landscapes. If I did, I wouldn't have seen the need for the extra stop. I use my 16-35L a lot indoors, and the larger max aperture has been useful to me. If not, I'd recommend the much less expensive 17-40L over the 16-35L any day. And I'm fortunate to have a excellent copy of this lens.