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 21 Aug 2017 (Monday) 12:43
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

16-35L or 17-40L?

 
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
Joined Mar 2011
Aug 21, 2017 12:43 |  #1

I'm looking to pick up a UWA. I owned the 17-40 at one time and i liked it. I'm wondering if the 16-35/4L is worth the premium over the 17-40.


Canon 5d mkii | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
Olympus EPL7 | Panasonic 20/1.7 | Olympus 45/1.8
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
kf095
Cream of the Crop
kf095's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
Canada, Ontario, Milton
Aug 23, 2017 12:16 |  #2

My 17-40 was awful in the corners if wide. My daughter gave me 16-35 2.8 (she switched to 24-105 F4 IS L), it is better lens. And f2.8 is handy for me.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Aug 23, 2017 12:29 |  #3

mike_311 wrote in post #18433275 (external link)
I'm looking to pick up a UWA. I owned the 17-40 at one time and i liked it. I'm wondering if the 16-35/4L is worth the premium over the 17-40.

If you're always shooting at F8~F11 on a tripod and want to save money, get the 17-40L.

If you want the best everything, IS, and sharp wide open corner to corner, get the 16-35 F4L IS.

Very best,


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 23, 2017 12:37 |  #4

The 16-35f4IS image quality is more like a prime lens "look". Micro contrast is like all of the newer generation Canon lenses.

The 17-40L has less micro contrast and is sharp like the typical aging Canon lenses like the 24-70 f/2.8mk1.

IMO the 16-35f/4IS is one of the cheapest UWA lenses that produces incredible IQ. It surpasses the 16-35 f/2.8mk2 in IQ sharpness. If your like sunflare with spikes the Canon 16-35 f/4is and f/2.8mk2 is more star like with less points vs the Tamron 15-30 UWA lens.

I will say the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8VC has excellent bokeh at f/2.8 for a UWA lens when subjects are close. Depending on style and budget Tamron is something definitely to look into instead of the 16-35 f/2.8mk3. Tammy is heavy though.......but the image quality is easily on par with the 16-35 f/4is.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Nick5's Avatar
2,905 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Philadelphia Suburbs
Aug 25, 2017 09:30 |  #5

mike_311 wrote in post #18433275 (external link)
I'm looking to pick up a UWA. I owned the 17-40 at one time and i liked it. I'm wondering if the 16-35/4L is worth the premium over the 17-40.

If the 16-35 f/4 L IS was on the market in January of 2014, I would not have bought the 17-40 f/4 L.
In the summer of 2015, I decided to buy the 16-35 f/4 L IS for a trip to Rome where tripods are prohibited and shooting Hand Held. Being able to capture razor sharp images with better corner to corner results truly paid off.
I still have my 17-40 a resale price is not much. For me having a back up available is ease of mind.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

LOG IN TO REPLY
3Rotor
Senior Member
757 posts
Joined May 2009
Oklahoma
Aug 25, 2017 09:54 |  #6

At one time I purchased the 17-40 and 16-35 f/4 at the same time. The 16-35 is top notch, the 17-40 was sold a week later.


JESSEMAK.COM (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
johnf3f's Avatar
3,713 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Apr 2010
Wales
Aug 25, 2017 18:24 |  #7

Just YES!

I loved my 17-40 for a long time. I learned to live with it's distortion and soft edges simply because it's colour was so good. The 16-35 F4 L IS is exactly the same but without the distortion and very sharp too!

Give one a try - you won't need to download images the rear screen will tell you all you need to know! It is simply a great lens at a sensible price.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,072 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Aug 26, 2017 08:47 |  #8

Optically, reviews and users say the 16-35F4 IS is better and sharper in the corners. I have the 17-40 and don't plan to upgrade.
There are things that I like about the 17-40:
It is lighter and smaller.
It goes to 40 on the long end.
It doesn't change length as you zoom.
It can double as a normal lens on a crop body.

The 17-40 does have some funky distortion in the far corners at 17, so you may want to keep people out of those areas in photos. However, it is sharp at F8-F11 and that works outside. I have used it inside on a full frame camera in very low light. ISO performance on a 6D will let you get useful pictures in low light.
If I were buying today, I would probably spend a few bucks more for the 16-35F4 IS, but mainly for the IS while travelling.
If you are planning to do nearly all of your shooting outside in decent light, you won't gain anything from the IS. If I were planning a trip to Rome, I would rather take a lens with IS. If this is going to be a frequently used lens, that should factor into your thinking. I have other lenses that get used more often, so I am content with keeping my 17-40.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,597 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 26, 2017 10:17 |  #9

I have no intention of upgrading my 17-40. I generally use it at f/8-11, and try to avoid 17mm.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
*** vanished ***
Sep 01, 2017 11:41 |  #10

artyH wrote in post #18437369 (external link)
Optically, reviews and users say the 16-35F4 IS is better and sharper in the corners. I have the 17-40 and don't plan to upgrade.
There are things that I like about the 17-40:
It is lighter and smaller.
It goes to 40 on the long end.
It doesn't change length as you zoom.
It can double as a normal lens on a crop body.

The last two qualities are also shared with the 16-35/4.
If money is not a problem, I would definitely upgrade.
The 17-40 is lighter and smaller, but the IS replaces a tripod, which is much heavier and bigger ;-)a
As a vacation lens, the IS makes a big difference, especialy when shooting indoor and at night.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
*** vanished ***
Sep 01, 2017 11:47 |  #11

Bassat wrote in post #18437427 (external link)
I have no intention of upgrading my 17-40. I generally use it at f/8-11, and try to avoid 17mm.

This is why I'd rather buy a couple smaller used primes than the 17-40, if the 16-35/4 is too expensive.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ P
Goldmember
James P's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
Chatham, Ontario, Canada
Sep 01, 2017 15:48 |  #12

I had the 17-40L before going to the 16-35L. For me, the cost was well worth the money. The 16-35L is much sharper across the whole image.


1Dx - 5DIII - 40D - Canon 24-70LII, 100L macro, 135L, 16-35L, 70-200 f4 and 100-400L lenses

- "Very good" is the enemy of "great." Sometimes we confuse the two.

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Sep 01, 2017 21:19 |  #13

James P wrote in post #18442338 (external link)
I had the 17-40L before going to the 16-35L. For me, the cost was well worth the money. The 16-35L is much sharper across the whole image.

I almost felt the 16-35 f/2.8mk2 was a lateral change from my 17-40L. I loved my 17-40 since f/4 is easy to get sharp images Imo without stopping down.

What I'm finding is that the 5dmk4 with my 16-35 f/2.8mk2 seems like I've bumped up some sharpness and micro contrast. Not sure why but I'm finding my 5dmk4 images better than my micro adjusted finely tuned 5dmk3.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Post has been edited 2 months ago by ejenner.
Sep 05, 2017 22:37 |  #14

Even at f8-f11 the 16-35 is quite a bit sharper in the corners, certainly at the wide end. The 17-40 is not so bad at 30-40mm if I remember correctly, so I'm not sure how they compare there.

Of course pros were selling large prints made with the 17-40 back in the day. If you need something cheap, are going to shoot it at f11 and can get one for less than 1/2 a 16-35, it is worth considering for sure.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
FarmerTed1971's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Portland, OR
Sep 05, 2017 22:50 |  #15

What Mal said.

I owned both. I would have no problem getting the 16-35 f4 IS again. A stellar lens.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - 18-55 - 35 f2 WR - 50-140 - 6D - 135L - 70-200 f4L IS - 600EX-RT x2 - ST-E3-RT - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

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

3,661 views & 8 likes for this thread
16-35L or 17-40L?
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 0.00099 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is rodney18
926 guests, 415 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016