EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM vs. EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Hello all,

I want to get a UWA lens in the near future.
However, these two lenses came into my mind.
One's cost as twice as much as the other but has f/2.8
Some people say to go with 16-35 due to f/2.8 and better image quality.
I've seen great pictures taken with 17-40 in both low light and day light situations.
I am planning to take landscape photos, however I might need to take indoor photos later.
I don't have that much money to spend on 16-35.
Should I save up and get 16-35??
Or should I get 17-40 and a flash since I don't have one?
Thanks all

I'd definately go the 17-40L + Flash route. For landscapes, it'll be pretty much just as good, although missing 1mm. When taking indoor photos, remember, having f/2.8 doesnt mean anything if you need f/5.6 for the required depth of field.

Plus having a flash is amazingly handy once you get the hang of it.

I've honestly used both.

Save yourself some money. At landscape apertures after processing/sharpening they are pretty close. Also the 82mm filter is a little annoying.

I have this shot printed 36X24 from my original 5d and it is super sharp with the 17-40L.

http://www.flickr.com …/in/set-72157622478293910

I have not used both lenses but I do own the 17-40.

You didn't mention if you are using a FF or a CF. If you are using a CF, you may also want to consider the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS.

Both the 15-85 and the 17-40 cost about the same. There are both pros and cons to both lenses but overall, for sharpness and color quality, the 15-85mm takes the cake. The 15-85mm's quality is so good that it has replaced my desire / need to use my 17-40 and I use it is professionally all the time.

EF-S 15-85mm:

Pros:
- Near L quality build (it is plastic but feels like a brick)
- Sharper and better color then the 17-40 f/4L.
- Has IS and which works very well. Advertised is 4 stops but it easily does 3 stops with perfect results.
- is wider then the 17-40 and has more then double the reach.
- 1/3 Stop faster at 15mm
- Same wide-open f value at 40mm as the 17-40
- Full time manual focus.
- Lens hood does a great job of keeping the sun off the glass.

Cons:
- One stop slower then the 17-40 at 85mm.
- Variable aperture makes it not ideal for video.
- No lens hood. Must buy separately.
- Can't be used on FF.
- A little Lens-creep at 85mm and pointed straight up / down.
- Slight vignette at 85mm but is easily fixed in ACR
- Slight CA wide open at 15mm but easily fixed in ACR
- Lens gets longer as you zoom in.



EF 17-40 f/4L

Pros:
- L quality build (feels like a brick).
- Comes with hood and lens pouch.
- Consistent aperture across full focal length range. (Good for video)
- Lens does not grow longer as it zooms in and out. (Although front element does jut out a bit when zooming - see cons)

Cons:
- Softer then the 15-85mm when wide.
- Slightly less CA then the 15-85 but not by much.
- Color is less vibrant then the 15-85.
- Half the focal length of the 15-85.
- Using some filters causes the lens element to press against the filter when zooming since the front element moves in and out a bit. This is a slight design flaw that is either on all copies out there or at least on some of the newer versions as many have reported this problem and my copy suffers from it too.
- Lens hood does little to shield the sun. Because the hood is so small when shooting at an angle to the sun, it does nothing.
- No IS
- Only produces a field of view equal to a 28mm lens when used on a Crop Frame.

thephotographynut wrote in post #14557458
I have not used both lenses but I do own the 17-40.

You didn't mention if you are using a FF or a CF. If you are using a CF, you may also want to consider the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS.

Both the 15-85 and the 17-40 cost about the same. There are both pros and cons to both lenses but overall, for sharpness and color quality, the 15-85mm takes the cake. The 15-85mm's quality is so good that it has replaced my desire / need to use my 17-40 and I use it is professionally all the time.

EF-S 15-85mm:

Pros:
- Near L quality build (it is plastic but feels like a brick)
- Sharper and better color then the 17-40 f/4L.
- Has IS and which works very well. Advertised is 4 stops but it easily does 3 stops with perfect results.
- is wider then the 17-40 and has more then double the reach.
- 1/3 Stop faster at 15mm
- Same wide-open f value at 40mm as the 17-40
- Full time manual focus.
- Lens hood does a great job of keeping the sun off the glass.

Cons:
- One stop slower then the 17-40 at 85mm.
- Variable aperture makes it not ideal for video.
- No lens hood. Must buy separately.
- Can't be used on FF.
- A little Lens-creep at 85mm and pointed straight up / down.
- Slight vignette at 85mm but is easily fixed in ACR
- Slight CA wide open at 15mm but easily fixed in ACR
- Lens gets longer as you zoom in.


EF 17-40 f/4L

Pros:
- L quality build (feels like a brick).
- Comes with hood and lens pouch.
- Consistent aperture across full focal length range. (Good for video)
- Lens does not grow longer as it zooms in and out. (Although front element does jut out a bit when zooming - see cons)

Cons:
- Softer then the 15-85mm when wide.
- Slightly less CA then the 15-85 but not by much.
- Color is less vibrant then the 15-85.
- Half the focal length of the 15-85.
- Using some filters causes the lens element to press against the filter when zooming since the front element moves in and out a bit. This is a slight design flaw that is either on all copies out there or at least on some of the newer versions as many have reported this problem and my copy suffers from it too.
- Lens hood does little to shield the sun. Because the hood is so small when shooting at an angle to the sun, it does nothing.
- No IS
- Only produces a field of view equal to a 28mm lens when used on a Crop Frame.

+1 on the 15-85

thephotographynut wrote in post #14557458
You didn't mention if you are using a FF or a CF. If you are using a CF, you may also want to consider the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS.

OP's signature shows a 5DmkII

Mark_48 wrote in post #14557883
OP's signature shows a 5DmkII

Oops Didn't see it. Well... then I humbly back out... but I still like the 15-85

I have the ultimate (focal length wise) ff UWA, the Sigma 12-24 II which costs about the same as the 17-40, has equal IQ at 17mm, and let's you get über-wide shots. I tested them both together, and have no regrets. The lens is hard to find and it's not well known, but worth a look if you are looking for a good landscape lens on ff body.

Flash first, then 17-40 with leftover $$$. The flash will change your photography (for the good) alot more than a UWA will. Don't get me wrong, UWA lenses are great and alot of fun to use too!

I owned both but ended up selling the 16-35ii. I only shot landscape which is usually f11+ so the 17-40 fine. Spend the extra cash on other things like others have mentioned.

chrisd999 wrote in post #14559513
I have the ultimate (focal length wise) ff UWA, the Sigma 12-24 II which costs about the same as the 17-40, has equal IQ at 17mm, and let's you get über-wide shots. I tested them both together, and have no regrets. The lens is hard to find and it's not well known, but worth a look if you are looking for a good landscape lens on ff body.

Wait, you can use 12-24 on FF? that's must be super ultra wide for sure. Interesting..

gtg844f wrote in post #14560572
Wait, you can use 12-24 on FF? that's must be super ultra wide for sure. Interesting..

Yes you can! Its the widest non fisheye lens made for 35mm cameras and it really is mind bending how wide it is.

Simpleboy wrote in post #14561401
Yes you can! Its the widest non fisheye lens made for 35mm cameras and it really is mind bending how wide it is.

What he said.

Here are links to albums I shot with the Sigma 12-24mm II posted on g+:

https://plus.google.co​m …lbums/573219912​3358180145

https://plus.google.co​m …lbums/571069439​2544757345

It is equivalent to the stellar Sigma 8-16mm UWA made for Canon crop cameras. It's sharper in the corners than the older 12-24mm I lens, but there is apparently a bit more distortion wide open.

Advantages of the 16-35 II are the f/2.8 aperture, the extra 1mm on the wide end, and the excellent starbursts on lights when stopped down. The disadvantage is that it takes 82mm filters.

If you want the extra 1mm and the f/2.8 without spending quite as much money, you can always buy a used copy of the original 16-35.

The only disadvantage to the 17-40 is the f/4 aperture. It is an excellent lens.

Go with the 17-40 with flash, the two lenses are very similar IQ wise.

For landscapes your are going to be around f/11 anyways so you'll be set.

If you are shooting indoors the flash will help you out, along with the great ISO performance of the 5D2.