Canon 16-35L or 17-40L (Landscape Use)

[StealthLude]

Optics is the name of the game today...

I know the difference of one stop beteween the lenses.. and thats NOT the reason I posted this thread.

This thread is also NOT one of those, is the money worth the extra 1 stop of light argument... I am well aware what both lenses cost.

I have owned the 17-40L which was sold for a 10-22 since I own a crop body camera. But in my search for a 5d or MarkII1dn camrea, I wanted to ask owners of these lens which would be better...

I understand the 16-35 is a lot more expencive, but is the OPTICAL PEFORMANCE, much better than the 17-40 lens?

I plan on using this lens mainly for landscape with a tripod, and wanted to know (assuming the sweet spot on this lens is im guessing around 8 to 16?) Can anyone else confirm this?

Which lens will provide better resolution, color contrast, and sharpness?

Or are both lenses optically identical?, and the only reason for the additional cost is the extra stop of light with the 2.8 lens?

Looking for answers before I buy!

Thanks Again

[Lightstream]

Pretty much. Check out Luminous Landscape's review of the 16-35 vs 17-40 in terms of optical performance.

I pretty much shoot all my landscapes at f/8 anyway so that completely nullifies the advantage of the 16-35. What about low light? Then out comes the mainstay of any serious landscape photog - the tripod. Doesn't matter if it's 1/15 seconds or 15 seconds in that case.

[grego]

Go for 17-40. Or buy tilt shift!!

[Woolburr]

I have owned both....still have a 17-40 and have another 16-35 on the way. The only reason I have for getting the 16-35 is the extra stop for low light situations. For landscape work...at f/8 the results are very similar...if you don't positively need the extra speed....the 17-40 is not going to disappoint you.

[StealthLude]

Never thought of the tilt shift Grego =)... sounds intresting but I need a zoom lens thats going to better fit my needs.

I wouldnt mind the extra stop... and dont mind spending the extra money. But according to Luminous Landscape's the 17-40 is sharper on the wide end, with less flare.

But the 16-35 is softer of the wide end, and sharper at 35mm than the 17-40 is. It also has better contrast.

I still dont know if I am going FF or 1.3 crop for my next camrea. And I dont plan on getting anything wider than 17 or 16mm... But I guess I need to ask myself am I going to be using 17mm more, or 35mm range more. (I would say 17mm for landscape for myself, but I need the zoom for walk around)

I was a little disapointed in the 35mm FC with the 17-40 on Luminous Landscape's ...

Indoors I usually use a flash, so I dont know if I NEED the extra stop, but I would be nice =)

Can anyone post samples of the 17-40 @ 35mm - 40mm focal length?

[grego]

Well you can use the extra money on something else you need, so keep that in mind.

[StealthLude]

Originally Posted by grego

Well you can use the extra money on something else you need, so keep that in mind.

Ya, like an upgrade to a 70-200 2.8 IS lens.. =)

Im still trying to figure out if a dedicated prime is the way to go for me...? But I rather have a zoom lens.

Im a sucker for L optics in primes, and even non L primes... I wonder if the 17-40L would have better optics than a non L USM prime in the wide end...

I really wanted a 35mm L Prime, but the cost... I just think for the money, the zoom is the way to go. (17-40 or 16-35)...

too many choices, Thanks A lot Canon!....

[tomhide]

StealthLude, as you've already pointed out few reviews finds the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35. I do bit of landscape stuff and with my 17-40, I find my self shooting at the wide end the 90% of time and still want it wider as I use 30D.

[StealthLude]

Originally Posted by tomhide

StealthLude, as you've already pointed out few reviews finds the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35. I do bit of landscape stuff and with my 17-40 and find my self shooting at the wide end the 90% of time and still want it wider as I use 30D.

Thats because 17mm isnt wide on a 20D/30D camera... This is the reason I sold the 17-40 in the first place, and bought a 10-22. The 10-22 is one of the best ultra wide angles lenses ive owned. And even with the purchase of a 5D or MarkII1Dn, I dont plan on selling my 20D or 10-22.

10-22 gets my creative juices flowing, sometimes the lens can be too wide

Canon needs to do that PMA thing so I can find out what new camera is going to hit the market. I want an updated Mark II1Dn with better noise control and more MPs.

[Lightstream]

That's why there SEEMS to be a substantial overlap in my lens lineup. I primarily use the wide end, where the 17-40 shines, and if I need enhanced performance on the long end, that's when I switch up to my 24-105, which is outstanding. Conversely, if I need vignetting-free 24mm, I use the 17-40 instead of the 24-105. On my 5D, the 17-40 is a functional replacement for the 10-22. Yes, it can be too wide and I fully agree with the Canon book that if you are not careful, you could end up subject-less.. an endless horizon with all the features reduced to tiny dots.. I've done that before while learning the 10-22.

So the overlap exists for a reason.. use it to complement your lenses strengths and weaknesses. Primes are too limiting for what *I* like to shoot... I like to frame landscapes the way I want it, not the way my hardware says it should be framed.

[Lord_Malone]

I've owned both and will say that the optical differences between the two are mostly negligible, and that it all boils down to splitting hairs really. Since I've taken ownership of the 16-35L in 2005, I've had ample opportunity to really get to know it and shoot with it a lot. When I compare my results to what I used to get with the 17-40L, I'm never dissappointed. The overall color and contrast of the 16-35 look much better to me. If an image doesn't come out sharp using this lens it's purley an error on my part. I've shot at f/2.8 with this lens with incredible results.

16mm, f/2.8, 1/80, ISO 1600


Most claim that corner to corner sharpness suffers at f/2.8, but they're not understanding the limitations of this lens shot wide open at 16mm! If the naysayers can engineer a fast UWA that won't do this then have a crack at it! With that said, if you're shooting landscapes, why on Earth would corner to corner sharpness even matter at f/2.8? BTW, this is not directed at Stealthlude and anyone else participating in this thread. I know you guys know what's up. The only real gripe I've ever had with the 16-35L was the fact that it doesn't control flare as good as its less expensive brother, which can be a hinderance if shooting landscapes I suppose. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The effect has actually enhanced many of my images in various circumstances!

16mm, f2.8, 1/40, ISO 1600


If noise, flare, etc. are such photographic taboos, why would there be an option to add such effects in PhotoShop?

The 17-40L was a great lens and one of my first Ls. But I absolutely have no regrets paying the extra money and choosing the 16-35 in the end. Since owning it, I've never looked back. If you're going to be shooting primarily landscapes, stick with the 17-40L or EF-S 10-22.

[Lester Wareham]

Originally Posted by StealthLude

Optics is the name of the game today...

I know the difference of one stop beteween the lenses.. and thats NOT the reason I posted this thread.

This thread is also NOT one of those, is the money worth the extra 1 stop of light argument... I am well aware what both lenses cost.

I have owned the 17-40L which was sold for a 10-22 since I own a crop body camera. But in my search for a 5d or MarkII1dn camrea, I wanted to ask owners of these lens which would be better...

I understand the 16-35 is a lot more expencive, but is the OPTICAL PEFORMANCE, much better than the 17-40 lens?

I plan on using this lens mainly for landscape with a tripod, and wanted to know (assuming the sweet spot on this lens is im guessing around 8 to 16?) Can anyone else confirm this?

Which lens will provide better resolution, color contrast, and sharpness?

Or are both lenses optically identical?, and the only reason for the additional cost is the extra stop of light with the 2.8 lens?

Looking for answers before I buy!

Thanks Again

Well I went through this loop and decided with the 17-40 f4L, I think this is the better lens for landscape being sharper and the extra stop not being a driver. Above 20mm there are faster primes anyway. On APS-C this is a standard zoom where the extra stop might be useful, but on full frame I do not really need a fast ultra wide. Note this conclusion is not even considering cost. My background reasoning is thus:

Most people will say they are the same, or that the 17-40 is better wide and the 16-35 better at the tele end.

Looking at the MTF charts the 17-40 is somewhat better at all ranges suggesting that on average the 17-40 should be sharper.
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...gion/index.htm
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...on_A/index.htm
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...on_A/index.htm
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...on_A/index.htm

I have never seen a bad formal test of the 17-40 but there are a couple with the 16-35. A range of reviews below:
http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/16-35/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/142/cat/11
http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...40_4/index.htm
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/31/cat/11
http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/index.htm

Also going through opinion based reviews there seems to be more problematic reviews of the 16-35 than the 17-40 perhaps indicting more part-to-part variation in the former.

Note 16-35 lovers, this is just my opinion, but it was very carefully considered

Just my 2 cent worth.

[calicokat]

Originally Posted by Lord_Malone

I've owned both and will say that the optical differences between the two are mostly negligible, and that it all boils down to splitting hairs really. Since I've taken ownership of the 16-35L in 2005, I've had ample opportunity to really get to know it and shoot with it a lot. When I compare my results to what I used to get with the 17-40L, I'm never dissappointed. The overall color and contrast of the 16-35 look much better to me. If an image doesn't come out sharp using this lens it's purley an error on my part. I've shot at f/2.8 with this lens with incredible results.

16mm, f/2.8, 1/80, ISO 1600


Most claim that corner to corner sharpness suffers at f/2.8, but they're not understanding the limitations of this lens shot wide open at 16mm! If the naysayers can engineer a fast UWA that won't do this then have a crack at it! With that said, if you're shooting landscapes, why on Earth would corner to corner sharpness even matter at f/2.8? BTW, this is not directed at Stealthlude and anyone else participating in this thread. I know you guys know what's up. The only real gripe I've ever had with the 16-35L was the fact that it doesn't control flare as good as its less expensive brother, which can be a hinderance if shooting landscapes I suppose. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The effect has actually enhanced many of my images in various circumstances!

16mm, f2.8, 1/40, ISO 1600


If noise, flare, etc. are such photographic taboos, why would there be an option to add such effects in PhotoShop?

The 17-40L was a great lens and one of my first Ls. But I absolutely have no regrets paying the extra money and choosing the 16-35 in the end. Since owning it, I've never looked back. If you're going to be shooting primarily landscapes, stick with the 17-40L or EF-S 10-22.

That is some microphone shot, love it