Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 14 Jul 2014 (Monday) 19:28
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Sell 17-40L for 16-35 f4L IS?

 
Tony_Stark
Shellhead
Tony_Stark's Avatar
4,287 posts
Joined May 2010
Toronto, Canada
Jul 14, 2014 19:28 |  #1

Hey guys,

Recently I have been using my 50L almost exclusively for my shoots. I do use my wide angle when I need to either for interior shots or for the dramatic wide angle look. The 17-40L always left me a bit disappointed in terms of sharpness, wide angle distortion, and corners were always lacking.

The new 16-35L has come out and it has me very interested. The sharpness looks to be fantastic and distortion seems better also. How many have switched from old 17-40L to new 16-35L IS and have never looked back?


Nikon D810 | 24-70/2.8G | 58/1.4G
EOS M | 22 f/2 STM

Website (external link) | flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
bikfoto
Alexander the Wannabe
bikfoto's Avatar
420 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Los Angeles, CA
Jul 14, 2014 19:42 |  #2

If you have the cash - go for it. It all depends on what you're shooting the most.


bikfotoexternal link
Need a WEBSITE?external link
Gear & Feedback
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
KeenanRIVALS
Senior Member
KeenanRIVALS's Avatar
Joined Jun 2013
Michigan
Jul 14, 2014 19:46 |  #3

Well I don't think you are missing anything, in your post you say "never looked back", despite 5mm of focal length everything is an upgrade. It's just a matter of need and want really, if you think your pics are to distorted on the corners and not sharp enough in the middle go for it, if not then it may not be worth it. If IS at that focal length is important to you then thats another reason to upgrade, but I personally don't see the value, if I had other gaps to feel in my kit I would go there, or if my kit was complete and I needed to scratch that itch then I'd go for it.


KeenanRIVALS.com (external link) | Daily Street Photography Vlog's (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
hiketheplanet
Senior Member
hiketheplanet's Avatar
Joined May 2013
Jul 14, 2014 21:18 as a reply to KeenanRIVALS's post |  #4

I sold my 17-40 with the intention of picking up the new 16-35. I liked the 17-40, it was/is a fine lens. Corner sharpness never bothered me especially when the only (current canon production) alternative was the $1500 16-35/2.8II. I didn't feel I needed f/2.8 in a UWA, so I could never justify the cost difference between the two.

With the new 16-35 out, I really am intrigued. I like IS as I have vowed to either buy a) lenses with IS, or b) faster than f/2.8 that don't really need IS. The added sharpness in the corners is just bonus to me after that.

You can't go wrong with any of these fine choices though. For your budget of approx. $600, the 17-40 is a fine choice. If you need faster than f/4, the 3rd party offerings seem to offer a lot of bang for buck.




LOG IN TO REPLY
charles_leon
Member
127 posts
Joined Oct 2012
San Diego, CA
Jul 14, 2014 21:36 |  #5

I actually just sold my 17-40 this morning and i ordered the new 16-35, should get here friday though. but i really enjoyed the 17-40. i thought the f4 wouldve bothered me, but i ended up using it quite often.
i disliked the corner sharpness though. and the 16-35 f4 seems to remedy that problem. and i like the updated design and smaller hood. seeing some handheld shots of a second or even slower, i thought that was awesome. although i will miss the lightweight of the 17-40


6D. 16-35L f4. 50L. 135L

LOG IN TO REPLY
2cruise
Goldmember
2cruise's Avatar
Joined Jan 2009
Virginia.....I'm also known as Whisle
Jul 14, 2014 21:41 as a reply to charles_leon's post |  #6

I have my 17-40 sold and I'm going to order the new 16-35 f4 IS


5D Mark IV~70-200mm f4L IS~Zeiss 21mm 2.8~Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art~Zeiss 35mm f2~Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar~Zeiss Planar 85mm 1.4~Rokinon 14mm 2.8~Lee filters
My Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
CaliWalkabout
Senior Member
CaliWalkabout's Avatar
337 posts
Joined May 2010
Oakland, CA, USA
Jul 14, 2014 22:08 |  #7

If you look through the sample photo thread for the 17-40 it ought to impress you that there's a lot of mileage in that lens. Every time I dip into there I feel ashamed that it's my least used lens.

The 16-35 looks like an amazing lens, and if cost is not a factor it's the clear choice, but the 17-40 produces excellent images. The soft corners are a problem only for people who need corner-to-corner sharpness in their images (professionals in certain fields). The vast majority of humanity doesn't care about corner sharpness.


6D, 17-40L, 24L II, 50L, 100L, 70-300L.

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Jul 14, 2014 22:09 |  #8

Heya,

Do it! Drive those 17-40 prices down! ;)

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
Goldmember
Dlee13's Avatar
Joined Apr 2012
Sydney
Jul 14, 2014 23:53 |  #9

I think it all comes down to how much you'll use the lens on whether to get the 16-35 or not. Considering the 16-35 isn't that expensive, I would personally go for that without a doubt even though I own the 17-40 and love it.

If you already have the 17-40 and don't use it that much, I personally think it's a waste of money to upgrade and you might as well keep the 17-40.


Canon 6D Mark II ~ Canon M5 ~ Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 ~ Canon EF 35mm f2 IS ~ Canon EF 17-40mm f4L ~ Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM ~ Sigma 85mm f1.4
Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
LeeRatters
Goldmember
LeeRatters's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
Bristol, UK
Jul 15, 2014 03:14 |  #10

Dlee13 wrote in post #17032522external link
If you already have the 17-40 and don't use it that much, I personally think it's a waste of money to upgrade and you might as well keep the 17-40.

^^ That is me :)

Go for it though I say if you can afford it. It's certainly a better lens just depends if you can justify the cost to yourself. Or your other half obviously in some cases ;) :lol:


>> Flickr <<external link


LOG IN TO REPLY
dscri001
Senior Member
Joined Dec 2011
Virginia Beach, Virgina
Jul 15, 2014 03:28 |  #11

I had the 17-40L on my 6D probably 75% of the time. Loved everything about it. I sold it for the 16-35 and was blown away. Its as sharp as my 70-200. Nails every shot at f4. Oof areas are rendered nicely and it creates that micro contrast look in some cases. Its well worth every dollar. I have yet to find a downside to the lens.


-Tyler I II
EOS 6D, EF 16-35mm f/4 ISL, EF 35 f/1.4L, EF 40 f/2.8, Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZE, EF 85 f/1.8, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L, 430EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
davidfarina's Avatar
Joined May 2013
Jul 15, 2014 03:32 |  #12

I will most likely sell my 16-35L 2.8ii for the 16-35 with IS so for me if i would have a 17-40 it would be a no brainer for me.

However, i dont lose money by doing it, if done eight i even win. The 17-40 is a bit less worth so you must decide if you want to pay more. Still it all comes down to personal preferences, and IMHO i would do it


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
Goldmember
Dlee13's Avatar
Joined Apr 2012
Sydney
Jul 15, 2014 04:05 |  #13

LeeRatters wrote in post #17032752external link
^^ That is me :)

Go for it though I say if you can afford it. It's certainly a better lens just depends if you can justify the cost to yourself. Or your other half obviously in some cases ;) :lol:

I have the old Sigma 50 which I rarely use since I got my 35 and I doubt I'll ever get the Art since it's pretty much the same situation as the 17-40 and 16-35.

Tony_Stark does some amazing shots and I think he does them professionally (correct me if I'm wrong Tony_Stark) so the upgrade would probably be worth it if it pays for itself.


Canon 6D Mark II ~ Canon M5 ~ Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 ~ Canon EF 35mm f2 IS ~ Canon EF 17-40mm f4L ~ Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM ~ Sigma 85mm f1.4
Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony_Stark
THREAD ­ STARTER
Shellhead
Tony_Stark's Avatar
4,287 posts
Joined May 2010
Toronto, Canada
Jul 15, 2014 11:33 |  #14

Dlee13 wrote in post #17032788external link
I have the old Sigma 50 which I rarely use since I got my 35 and I doubt I'll ever get the Art since it's pretty much the same situation as the 17-40 and 16-35.

Tony_Stark does some amazing shots and I think he does them professionally (correct me if I'm wrong Tony_Stark) so the upgrade would probably be worth it if it pays for itself.

Yup I do my automotive work full time. I don't use the 17-40L as much as I used to (before I got the 50L I used it a lot) but I can partially put it down to the IQ quirks. I would love to get some hands on with the lens and see if its right for me to upgrade. I'm also looking to pick up the 135L soon so that's kind of the priority right now. I do enjoy doing landscapes as well, and would love to have the full frame sharp that the new 16-35 seems to have.


Nikon D810 | 24-70/2.8G | 58/1.4G
EOS M | 22 f/2 STM

Website (external link) | flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Elton Balch's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
Jul 15, 2014 11:49 |  #15

Well, I switched because I could "gift" my almost nine year old 17-40 to my stepson, otherwise I likely wouldn't have. Now that I have the new 16-35 I can say it is a significant improvement over the older 17-40. So, knowing what I know now, I'd switch in a heartbeat!


Elton Balch
5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, 24 mm f/1.4 L, 35 mm f/1.4 L, 50 mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L, 100 mm f/2.8 macro, 135 mm f/2 L, 300 mm f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS ii, 580 EX Flash, Speedlight 600 EX RT, 1.4 extender, extension tubes and other stuff.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,472 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sell 17-40L for 16-35 f4L IS?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00199 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
930 guests, 432 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016