16-35 or 17-40

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

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

yuribox wrote in post #12236181
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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

YouTellMe wrote in post #12238202
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!

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.

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

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

sinjans wrote in post #12238750
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.