17-40L vs 16-35L in a practical environment?

[Agnu]

Well I just listed up my 17-40L for sale, as i'd always planned to when I had the right amount of money in the bank, to buy the 16-35L. Now that i've listed it i'm suffering from pre-sellers remorse, before I sell it. So what I want to know is why do you use one or the other. I'm talking to Landscape, Seascape and what ever other 'scape' you can think of photographers. Why do you choose one over the other and for what reasons?

I want to move to the 16-35L for greater resolution, more clarity in my photos, more pleasing distortion, less CA and last and least better build quality (although that is a very unimportant thing to me). So generally IQ. I really don't care if at 100% crop this pixel is .0128 percent sharper than that pixel. But if there is a noticable difference then that would be nice to know.

Thanks a lot guys, help sway me one way or the other :).

[beegeeboy]

Hi,

Not sure how you'd get greater resolution?? And I've never seen a 16-35, but the 17-40 is an 'L' so the build quality should be very similar?

David

[jrader]

Well, the 16-35 wide open is f/2.8, the 17-40 wide open is f/4, which is one stop of light less. This translates to being able to focus much easier in low light situations with the 16-35. However, in my opinion, the 17-40 is an excellent low-end L series lens. I don't personally see the necessity of swapping lenses honestly. The IQ, sharpness, distortion, etc are all going to be very comparable (and you're obviously gaining nothing on the focal lenghts). You'd be spending a lot of money for not much difference. Save the cash for some Singh-Ray filters!

Hope this helps.

John (a fellow 17-40L user)

[Garrison Photographic]

I had the first version of the 16-35 for 3-4 years, and bought one of the 17-40's a year or two after they came out. And for me, after having both in the camera bag for about 18 months, I sold the 16-35 and used the dosh to fund other lenses. Bigger, bulkier, and I just didn't seem to grab it, and the 17-40 seems to live on the camera these days when the 70-200 IS 2.8 isn't on it... Yeah, once in a blue moon I miss the extra stop, but like blue moons, maybe once or twice a year. I've beat that 17-40 through the jungles and on the rivers of SE Asia for years now, and it just keeps on taking great photos for me. I've never had sellers remorse for getting rid of the 16-35; for me and my type of photography it's been the right choice hands down.

[5Dmaniac]

I actually don't think you will see any benefits from the faster lens given your subject matters. You might want to cancel your 17-40 sale and wait until the 16-35 arrives and then test them side by side. That's what I did last year and I saw no reason to keep the 16-35. I shoot landscapes mostly and when stopping down the two lenses, there is not enough difference tu justify the $$$$$$ difference.

[Markitos]

I'm with the others... I have the 16-35 mkI because I wanted to try it out and see if I would benefit from the extra stop of light... for what I do--shooting fast-moving children in varying amounts of light, it made sense. Previously, I had the 17-40 and loved it. For anything like landscapes, where you're stopping down, I think you will really, really strain to see the differences in the two lenses.

I'd say keep the 17-40 and save your money, unless you NEED the speed (which it doesn't sound like you do).

[Markitos]

Oh, and don't forget the 82mm filter threads on the 16-35 f/2.8 mkII--a slim circular polarizer will run you about $250 because of the extra size.

[DeCeccoNET]

Check out my thread here... (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=624361)

I had the 16-35mk2, sold it for a 17-40, and ended up rerturning it within 2 days because I wanted what the 16-35 was capable of.

[argyle]

If you don't need the 2.8, the 17-40L and the 5DMkII is a killer combo. This shot was taken just outside Sedona. Unfortunately, its unusable due to the two water drops that got onto the lens. This was shot at f/22...the rock in foreground left was about a foot or so from the lens. Sharp from front to back, foreground corner as well:

http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/562053243_237Q6-XL.jpg

[Jim G]

Well I just listed up my 17-40L for sale, as i'd always planned to when I had the right amount of money in the bank, to buy the 16-35L. Now that i've listed it i'm suffering from pre-sellers remorse, before I sell it. So what I want to know is why do you use one or the other. I'm talking to Landscape, Seascape and what ever other 'scape' you can think of photographers. Why do you choose one over the other and for what reasons?

I want to move to the 16-35L for greater resolution, more clarity in my photos, more pleasing distortion, less CA and last and least better build quality (although that is a very unimportant thing to me). So generally IQ. I really don't care if at 100% crop this pixel is .0128 percent sharper than that pixel. But if there is a noticable difference then that would be nice to know.

Better build quality? I've shot with both and my 17-40 feels the same as the 16-35s I've shot with.. no significant differences.

On the edges my 17-40 outresolves the one copy of the 16-35 I I've shot with. Not sure about the II.

My 17-40 doesn't display any significant CA.. if it did I might feel a bit less warmly towards it. I've not seen any more pleasing distortion from a 16-35... My 17-40 is very sharp wide open and acceptable at the extreme corners and sharpens up brilliantly by f/8... which is where I do a lot of my landscape shooting at.

I had the money to upgrade a while back and decided to stick to the f/4 for my landscapes and put the money towards a nice prime. I don't see the 16-35 as having many advantages as far as landscapes go... for low light work, definitely, but for stuff where you're sitting at small apertures.. feh?

[Markitos]

Better build quality? I've shot with both and my 17-40 feels the same as the 16-35s I've shot with.. no significant differences.

On the edges my 17-40 outresolves the one copy of the 16-35 I I've shot with. Not sure about the II.

My 17-40 doesn't display any significant CA.. if it did I might feel a bit less warmly towards it. I've not seen any more pleasing distortion from a 16-35... My 17-40 is very sharp wide open and acceptable at the extreme corners and sharpens up brilliantly by f/8... which is where I do a lot of my landscape shooting at.

I had the money to upgrade a while back and decided to stick to the f/4 for my landscapes and put the money towards a nice prime. I don't see the 16-35 as having many advantages as far as landscapes go... for low light work, definitely, but for stuff where you're sitting at small apertures.. feh?

I totally agree with everything you've said. :)

[Agnu]

Ah ok thanks heaps for the input guys. Yeah I never ended up selling the 17-40L. It was just because ever since I started the landscape thing I had always wanted the 16-35L because all the photographers I looked up to used it (I know, I know...I was young) and so I just sortah had it set in my head that the 16-35L was the be all and end all of Canon 35mm landscape lenses. But i'm very perfectly happy with the quality that my 17-40L is giving me now and I see no reason to change just because I have the money. Thanks guys for putting me straight, I just needed reasurance that if I went and spent that money on something else I wouldn't be kicking myself over not getting the 16-35L.

And seeming as I only have 2 working lenses right now (17-40L and 50 f/1.4) and my 50 is misfocusing and basically dying on me, I guess it'd be better to invest in some new prime glass anyways :).

[esspee1200]

not sure if it's just my 16-35 MKI copy, but it's rather tough to zoom in comparison to my UV 17-40. anyone else notice this?

[Markitos]

Nope... Mine zooms perfectly.

[esspee1200]

ok, so if you look inside the lend from the end barrel, what is the magnetic stripe that connects the lens to the body of the lens? you can see it if you zoom the lens back and forth. anyone know what i am talking about? i hope i was descriptive enough, i just don't know what its called.

[argyle]

Ah ok thanks heaps for the input guys. Yeah I never ended up selling the 17-40L. It was just because ever since I started the landscape thing I had always wanted the 16-35L because all the photographers I looked up to used it (I know, I know...I was young) and so I just sortah had it set in my head that the 16-35L was the be all and end all of Canon 35mm landscape lenses. But i'm very perfectly happy with the quality that my 17-40L is giving me now and I see no reason to change just because I have the money. Thanks guys for putting me straight, I just needed reasurance that if I went and spent that money on something else I wouldn't be kicking myself over not getting the 16-35L.

And seeming as I only have 2 working lenses right now (17-40L and 50 f/1.4) and my 50 is misfocusing and basically dying on me, I guess it'd be better to invest in some new prime glass anyways :).

Another advantage to the 17-40L is the 77mm filter size...its nice to be able to use common filters across a wide range of L zooms, all the way up to the 100-400L. The dang 82mm filter size on the 16-35L would be a PITA to me.

[Markitos]

Another advantage to the 17-40L is the 77mm filter size...its nice to be able to use common filters across a wide range of L zooms, all the way up to the 100-400L. The dang 82mm filter size on the 16-35L would be a PITA to me.

That is only true if you use the mkII version of the lens. The original 16-35 (which I have) has 77mm filter threads... one of the reasons I opted for it over the mk II.

[WillOPhotos]

from the reviews ive seen the 17-40 and 16-35 have prety much the same image quality if I had a 17-40mm I wouldnt bother upgrading :)

[jdizzle]

Another advantage to the 17-40L is the 77mm filter size...its nice to be able to use common filters across a wide range of L zooms, all the way up to the 100-400L. The dang 82mm filter size on the 16-35L would be a PITA to me.
LOL! I have the 16-35 II. Too bad for me! :);)