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 Apr 2011 (Saturday) 19:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35 or 17-40

 
EdV
Goldmember
Avatar
3,257 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
     
Apr 16, 2011 19:15 |  #1

Been think about filling this gap since I got my 5D2. I have a Sigma 10-20 that I can still use with my 50D. And I have a Canon 24-70 2.8L; 70-200 2.8L; 300 2.8L and some other glass. Truth be told, I can't tell you the last time I have shot wide open with anything other than the 300 2.8 w/ a 2x (600 5.6) for birds.

That said, I keep thinking the 17-40 may be enough lens. Thoughts?

I should add that price is not an issue since I can't really afford either. But I will get one somehow. My wife says I always do!

Ed


"the earth has music for those who listen."
Visit my Website: Ed Vatza Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
yuribox
Senior Member
257 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Apr 16, 2011 19:30 |  #2

I bought 17-40 because it had 77mm filter thread and I already had B&W ND filter.


1Ds IR, 5DIII, 1DIII, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200, TS-E24, 40, 50, 85, 100, MP-E65

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EdV
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,257 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
     
Apr 16, 2011 19:34 |  #3

yuribox wrote in post #12236181 (external link)
I bought 17-40 because it had 77mm filter thread and I already had B&W ND filter.

I appreciate your honesty. Actually I am in the same boat. Even have a spare 77 mm B+W UV filter here not to mention Singh-Ray Vari-ND and such. Not that I'd want to stack them on a wide angle. That too enters into the decision.

Ed


"the earth has music for those who listen."
Visit my Website: Ed Vatza Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,209 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 1391
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 16, 2011 19:46 |  #4

The consensus in a lot of threads comparing the two is that if you dont need 2.8, you might well be happy with the 17-40. The 16-35 is a bit sharper, but perhaps not enough to justify the extra cost.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SchnellerGT
Senior Member
585 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Washington, DC
     
Apr 16, 2011 19:51 |  #5

I bought the 17-40 first and was unimpressed with it, especially in the corners. I returned it and bought the 16-35LII and haven't looked back. Much better in the corners and the 2.8 aperture adds a whole new dimension. It is my most-oft-used lens.


Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 2.8L II [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][​FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][F​ONT=Tahoma]| Canon 40mm Pancake | Canon EF 85 1.8 USM | Canon EF 135 F2L USM | Canon Speedlite 430 EX
Buyer Feedback for "SchnellerGT" (Fredmiranda) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Apr 17, 2011 01:58 as a reply to  @ SchnellerGT's post |  #6

Had both now have the 16-35 just so I have f2.8 when I need it but I never had a problem with IQ on the 17-40.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
supracuhz
Senior Member
Avatar
393 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Los Angeles SGV
     
Apr 17, 2011 02:28 |  #7

Man, I wish they'd make all lenses just take 77mm filters. If it was me, I'd just save the money and go for the 17-40... in dim situations, i just bust out a flash or bump up the iso. sure there are occasions where 16mm @ 2.8 might be useful, but for me, its not worth the $6-700 increase.

As for filters, thats the main reason why I still have my gigantic 70-200 2.8.
all my filters are 77mm for my lenses, 17-40mm, sigma 50mm, etc.. Its a good lens, but sometimes i wish it could be less gigantic.... (not in terms of filter size of course). That, and it comes with a collar :)


Gear List + Transactions

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YouTellMe
Member
176 posts
Joined Feb 2011
     
Apr 17, 2011 05:10 |  #8

I was in the same boat u were. I opted for the 17-40 for several reasons...
First its alot cheaper than the 16-35. I could not justify 600-700 difference for that 1mm wider.
Secondly, since i am aiming at landscapes for this lens, i will most likely be at f/8 or f/11 90% of the time which, according to reviews, is not that far IQ-wise from the 16-35. Thus the 2.8 is irrelevant.
Like some people another major reason was the 77mm filter which is almost a standard on the L series lenses, and i did not want to buy another B+W CPL to fit a 16-35.
For a FF i personally believe 17mm is wide enough for anything i need. If it isn't then i will just resort to panorama stitching.
There are several complaints about the 17-40 and distortion so if u can borrow one to test it'll be better before u pull ur couch seats and find the cash your lookin for.


Gear List / Feedback
Kenko Extension Tubes for Dummies

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tsmith
Formerly known as Bluedog_XT
Avatar
10,429 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Jul 2005
Location: South_the 601
     
Apr 17, 2011 07:55 as a reply to  @ YouTellMe's post |  #9

Both are pretty much the same exact build quality - f/2.8 is only one stop above f/4 - my copy of the 17-40 is sharp enough at f/4 - 82mm filters are pricey - Image results that I've seen at the same apertures are hard to tell apart from one another - lastly the 17-40 is the much better bargain.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
melcat
Goldmember
1,122 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 17, 2011 08:29 |  #10

f/2.8 is easier to see through than f/4 using the Ee-S screen I prefer. Since all your lenses are f/2.8 you will probably feel the same way.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SOX ­ 404
Senior Member
Avatar
574 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2006
Location: I'm a nomad
     
Apr 17, 2011 08:57 |  #11

YouTellMe wrote in post #12238202 (external link)
I was in the same boat u were. I opted for the 17-40 for several reasons...
First its alot cheaper than the 16-35. I could not justify 600-700 difference for that 1mm wider.
Secondly, since i am aiming at landscapes for this lens, i will most likely be at f/8 or f/11 90% of the time which, according to reviews, is not that far IQ-wise from the 16-35. Thus the 2.8 is irrelevant.
Like some people another major reason was the 77mm filter which is almost a standard on the L series lenses, and i did not want to buy another B+W CPL to fit a 16-35.
For a FF i personally believe 17mm is wide enough for anything i need. If it isn't then i will just resort to panorama stitching.
There are several complaints about the 17-40 and distortion so if u can borrow one to test it'll be better before u pull ur couch seats and find the cash your lookin for.

Exactly!


AJ
1 x Canon 5DSR | 2 x Canon 5D2 | 8-15L | 16-35L | 17-40L (dead) | 50L | 85L | 100L | 135L | 180L | 70-200 2.8L IS
Aquatica UW Housing | INON Z240 | Ikelite DS-161 | Sola 600 | 2 x Sola 2000
My Flickr  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
friz
Goldmember
Avatar
1,595 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Apr 17, 2011 09:18 |  #12

Bought my 17-40 a few years ago from a guy desperate to sell right before my vacation to colorado. My plan was to take a few landscapes with it and sell it at a profit. Well I liked it so much a couldn't sell it. I really like it as a wide to normal zoom for a crop as well as a UWA on a FF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sinjans
Senior Member
Avatar
659 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Newfoundland and Labrador
     
Apr 17, 2011 09:20 |  #13

does the 16-35 straighten the lines any better than the 17-40?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
.thach
Senior Member
Avatar
471 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Houston
     
Apr 17, 2011 09:30 |  #14

If you is rich : 16-35
If you is po'h : 17-40


Hi, its Danny.
I am Canonese
GEAR LIST
flickr (external link)
Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Apr 17, 2011 09:35 |  #15

sinjans wrote in post #12238750 (external link)
does the 16-35 straighten the lines any better than the 17-40?

Show us a image with "crooked lines".

I suspect you're really dealing with perspective distortion and not true lens distortion. If so, no lens except something like a tilt-shift lens will correct what you are seeing. Once we see the example, I can continue with additional information.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

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

2,281 views & 0 likes for this thread
16-35 or 17-40
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 mcsdet
1542 guests, 279 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.