Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 16 Dec 2010 (Thursday) 18:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-40 f4L or 16-35 F2.8L

 
jakele_x
Member
Avatar
187 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2010
     
Dec 16, 2010 18:54 |  #1

Anyone who has experience with these two please give me some advice ... should save money and go for 17-40 or keep saving to go up 16-35


5D Mrk II | T2i gripped | EF-s 18-55mm f/3.5-5.5 IS | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 70-200mm f/4 L
Check Out My Photos flickr (external link)
My gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
spiralspirit
Senior Member
940 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Manitoba, Canada
     
Dec 16, 2010 19:02 |  #2

1) Everywhere I look I find people saying the IQ of the 17-40 to be superior to that of the 16-35.

2) The 17-40 is limited to f/4, the 16-35 is a faster lens at f/2.8. If you need that extra stop of light you can't really use the 17-40. If you don't the 17-40 is probably the better purchase.


canon 1dmk2* Canon XSi * Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG * Canon 17-40mm f/4L * Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX * Canon 50mm f/1.8 *

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Travism56
Senior Member
314 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: chandler az
     
Dec 16, 2010 20:46 |  #3

i have had both and if you can work with f4 its an increadable lens. attached to my body most of the time, the 2.8 is nice but i rarely needed it. i found them both very sharp lenses you cant go wrong with one just costs about 60% less,


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HyperYagami
Goldmember
2,405 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY, USA
     
Dec 16, 2010 21:46 as a reply to  @ Travism56's post |  #4

pretty sure if you get the f/4 you'll still lust about f/2.8.



5D3 and a few lens
es.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
irishman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,098 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
     
Dec 16, 2010 21:49 |  #5

spiralspirit wrote in post #11465687 (external link)
1) Everywhere I look I find people saying the IQ of the 17-40 to be superior to that of the 16-35.

2) The 17-40 is limited to f/4, the 16-35 is a faster lens at f/2.8. If you need that extra stop of light you can't really use the 17-40. If you don't the 17-40 is probably the better purchase.

Now that's just crazy talk. The only people saying that are those trying to justify their 17-40. I've owned both and there is no comparison. Do you think Canon would charge over twice as much for an inferior product? The ONLY thing better about the 17-40 is the price.


6D, G9, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 15mm Fisheye, Sigma 50 2.8 macro, Nikon 14-24G 2.8, Canon 16-35 2.8 II, Canon 24-105 f/4 IS, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, tripod, lights, other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brownbugger
Senior Member
Avatar
941 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Dec 16, 2010 21:52 |  #6

If you are going to stop down for landscapes then the 17-40 probably seems to be a better choice, but if you like I do ..have to shoot in poor or failing light where 2.8 comes in handy for news or events work then pick up the 16-35.


Gripped Canon 50D, Canon 400D with BG-E3 Grip, 580 EXII Flash, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L , Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L / Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 /Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 / Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
spiralspirit
Senior Member
940 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Manitoba, Canada
     
Dec 16, 2010 22:43 |  #7

irishman wrote in post #11466585 (external link)
Now that's just crazy talk. The only people saying that are those trying to justify their 17-40. I've owned both and there is no comparison. Do you think Canon would charge over twice as much for an inferior product? The ONLY thing better about the 17-40 is the price.

The 17-40 definitely has better IQ at the wider end (17mm) than the 16mm at the same 17mm, with both at f/4. The 17 also deals with flare a lot better. Canon charges twice as much for the 16mm because it's 1) one stop faster and 2) probably costs more to make.


canon 1dmk2* Canon XSi * Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG * Canon 17-40mm f/4L * Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX * Canon 50mm f/1.8 *

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NatDeroxL7
Goldmember
Avatar
1,254 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 517
Joined Dec 2009
     
Dec 16, 2010 22:45 |  #8

To be honest all the Canon UWA zooms are lacking in the corners.

You can check my flickr link in my signature, and yeah, I have taken many acceptably sharp pictures with the 17-40 stopped down to f11, and with appropiate framing and subject, some at wider apertures than that.

If However, even at f11, and f16, where you start losing sharpness to diffraction, the corners are not sharp. Same goes for the 16-35s. At f11, I can crop out the corners to where the sharpness comes back, and still have a 18MP image. If you are starting with less resolution you might not be so lucky.

Also, distortion on both of these lenses is crazy at the wide end. Yes, software can correct it but you will lose detail the more distortion has to be corrected.

you are looking for the light gathering capability, look towards the 24LII.

If you are looking for absolutely critical sharpness, look at the Zeiss 21, or if you must have super-ultra wide, the Canon 17 TS-E

If you really need some zoomability AND 2.8, I heard that the new Tokina 16-28 f2.8 is optically superior to any Canon UWA zoom, and equal and possibly a bit better than the Nikon 14-24. Very sharp, better corners, almost zero distortion and light falloff.

Once I leave afghanistan and no longer need the dust-seal of the L-Lens mount, I will most likely be buying the Zeiss 21, maybe the Tokina.


https://www.instagram.​com/nd14411 (external link)
https://natedphoto.myp​ortfolio.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BKGInc
Goldmember
Avatar
1,256 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 108
Joined Mar 2007
Location: California
     
Dec 16, 2010 22:51 |  #9

Travism56 wrote in post #11466277 (external link)
i have had both and if you can work with f4 its an increadable lens. attached to my body most of the time, the 2.8 is nice but i rarely needed it. i found them both very sharp lenses you cant go wrong with one just costs about 60% less,

I second this statement.


5DSR Gripped | 24-70 f/2.8L | 17-40 f/4L |600EX-RT |
Zenfolio (external link)
facebook (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,385 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3372
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Dec 16, 2010 22:59 |  #10

if you're buying it for your t2i why not go for the EF-S 17-55?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paperchasin
Member
112 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Dec 16, 2010 23:46 |  #11

DreDaze wrote in post #11466889 (external link)
if you're buying it for your t2i why not go for the EF-S 17-55?

I agree with this. Or at least, its worth considering.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cb1
Senior Member
424 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Dec 16, 2010 23:55 |  #12

I have both still, walk around, everyday use for the 17-40, 16-35 every night use lol


5d2 1d3 50d xsi Owl Coke bottle The Brick Golden Tullip

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
speters2
Member
37 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Grangeville, ID
     
Dec 17, 2010 01:39 as a reply to  @ cb1's post |  #13

I'll be after that Zeiss 21mm as well, or maybe the Nikon 14-24mm. I have the 16-35mm/2.8 II and I'am not at all impressed with it. It's so,so ,well it's ok (just).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jericobot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,128 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: preppingforthetrumpets
     
Dec 17, 2010 04:34 |  #14

Less than half the cost made me go for the 17-40. You'll be surprised what f4 could get you. But even more w/ 2.8. I'd say to save up for the 16-35 but wait, research and get more opinions


α7ii + (batis 25 f2 / zeiss 55 f1,8 / macro 90 f2,8)
♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Dec 17, 2010 06:48 |  #15

If f4 will seriously impact your image taking, get the 16-35. If not, you won't be gaining anything as far as IQ, over the 17-40, imo, or not much. You'll be paying a hefty premium over the 17-40, so it better be worth it, to you.

You haven't stated why you are looking for an UW.

Edit: I just noticed you have a crop body so neither of those will be UW. I wouldn't be looking at either of these lenses. Lots of better options in the 17-50/55 range than either of those, imo.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

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

4,891 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-40 f4L or 16-35 F2.8L
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Chris Parrish
761 guests, 137 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.