17-40 L stopped down

So I have finally "realized" that my 35L is not enough for my landscape photography. I am going to Kyoto next month, and I need something wider for my tripod based landscape shots.

I've been thinking about the 17-40 L vs the 16-35 L.

The 16-35 costs nearly trice as much as the 17-40, and is probably a little bit better in some ways. But does it really matter which one I choose, if I only want to use the lens stopped down (around f8 - f10 - f16) on a tripod?

They should be equally good when used this way, yeah?

17-40L and enjoy the savings. 16-35L II is a nice piece of glass, but not worth it if there are any budget restraints...

i dig it

Ricku wrote in post #13198755
But does it really matter which one I choose, if I only want to use the lens stopped down (around f8 - f10 - f16) on a tripod?

No

Ricku wrote in post #13198755
They should be equally good when used this way, yeah?

Yes, they are.

yes considered the same stopped down. Only reason to buy the 16 is if you need 2.8

i made the same decision after researching both. i hardly ever use it though.

Thanks everyone. This is all the confirmation I needed.

Ricku wrote in post #13198755
So I have finally "realized" that my 35L is not enough for my landscape photography. I am going to Kyoto next month, and I need something wider for my tripod based landscape shots.

I've been thinking about the 17-40 L vs the 16-35 L.

The 16-35 costs nearly trice as much as the 17-40, and is probably a little bit better in some ways. But does it really matter which one I choose, if I only want to use the lens stopped down (around f8 - f10 - f16) on a tripod?

They should be equally good when used this way, yeah?

if you really want the tops you could get 17 and 24 T&S

or zeiss 21mm or canon 24 1.4 II

all are sharper edge to edge on FF than 17-40 or 16-35, yes even at f/6.3 or f/8 or f/11

wombatHorror wrote in post #13199254
if you really want the tops you could get 17 and 24 T&S

or zeiss 21mm or canon 24 1.4 II

all are sharper edge to edge on FF than 17-40 or 16-35, yes even at f/6.3 or f/8 or f/11

I had forgotten about these!

Oh noes, more to think about now.

You have some other "small" differences like lens flare control and representation, and the number and shape of the aperture blades. Sunrays looks nicier on the 16-35.
You can see some examples at this interesting review here:

http://www.obturations​.com …-l-f4-vs-16-35mm-f2-8-ii/

I have the 17-40, and I borrowed the 16-35. I did some tests, and other than the 2.8 factor I could not see any noticeable difference.

Also the 17-40 is much lighter too.

MattD wrote in post #13200288
Also the 17-40 is much lighter too.

Yup, smaller too.

the 16-35 is wider, and is sharper in the corners even at f11 on the wide end. it also has less distortion.
the 17-40 is a lot cheaper, has a cheaper 77mm filter thread, is smaller, and did I say its cheaper?
Is 16-35 1000 bucks better? (really about 700-800 looking at used prices)? for most know. I still see plenty of people who would buy a 17ts, 24 ts, and 21 zeiss trio over th 16-35, which covers less range, and each lens alone is as or more expensive than the 16-35, for the marginal improvement in image quality.