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 10 Jun 2012 (Sunday) 00:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
gunston
Member
166 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Jun 20, 2012 08:16 |  #16

i owned 17-40L as well,
great lens, if you need fast lens go with cheaper option like 50mm f/1.4


Canon 5DMII 35L f/1.4 | EF 17-40L f/4
Still deciding lens: 24-70L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jun 24, 2012 20:46 |  #17

Wondering what people think about the 16-35 II vs 17-40 based on current DWI prices? (In Aussie dollars):

17-40 = $739
16-35 = $1389

Locally, 17-40 is around $850 and 16-35 is around $1800, so the savings there make it worth it, but from the grey market it isn't so bad...

If I bought the 17-40 I think I would probably buy it locally, as the markup isn't that substantial - but the low grey price on the 16-35 is very tempting... so really, the grey 16-35 is only around $500 more than the local 17-40.


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Judsonzhao
Goldmember
Avatar
1,198 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Jun 24, 2012 23:33 |  #18

What I concern the most is 16-35 Mark I and 17-40, any comments here?


Fly me away.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SOX ­ 404
Senior Member
Avatar
574 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2006
Location: I'm a nomad
     
Jun 25, 2012 16:57 |  #19

hanjolee wrote in post #14557136 (external link)
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

Get a 17-40, a good tripod, and a flash.
Like many said, you don't need f/2.8 to take landscape photos.


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
canong
Junior Member
20 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Mar 17, 2013 12:26 as a reply to  @ SOX 404's post |  #20

Sorry for digging up an old thread. I would like to know about f7 onwards, does the 16-35L Mk2 is sharper than the 17-40L?

I have used the 17-40L before for 2 months, it is horrible even for centre sharpness.. Maybe it is a bad copy or something.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,317 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Mar 17, 2013 12:46 |  #21

Mark-B wrote in post #14566270 (external link)
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.

how is that necessarily a disadvantage?


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,732 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1457
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Mar 17, 2013 12:59 |  #22

canong wrote in post #15724687 (external link)
Sorry for digging up an old thread. I would like to know about f7 onwards, does the 16-35L Mk2 is sharper than the 17-40L?

I have used the 17-40L before for 2 months, it is horrible even for centre sharpness.. Maybe it is a bad copy or something.

Too bad you experienced a bad copy.

Wider apertures the 16-35 has a nice micro contrast to the image. The 17-40L seems to be as sharp but lacks the micro contrast. It seems to have a "sharp" image like older generation canon lenses. Almost like comparing a 24L vs 24Lmk2.

Smaller apertures they are both excellent. Barrel distortion is probably the only complaint at wider angles.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,867 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Likes: 1127
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Mar 17, 2013 13:50 as a reply to  @ AlanU's post |  #23

Yea, it should be pretty sharp in the center at f5.6-f8. Of course 'sharp' is always relative, but it seems decent enough to me.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Mar 17, 2013 15:27 |  #24

ed rader wrote in post #15724745 (external link)
how is that necessarily a disadvantage?

Going from lenses that use a 77mm filter thread to lenses that use an 82mm filter thread is potentially a disadvantage for anyone who uses screw on filters because you will either have to stop using the filters or spend more money and carry more gear to continue using the filters.

The disadvantage for me in particular of going from a 17-40 to a 16-35 II would mean that I have to buy 4 new filters at a cost of $900 and carry those filters along with my 4 existing filters that I would continue to use on my 24-105 and 70-200 f/2.8.

A potential alternative would to switch to square filters and buy different size adapter rings. I have considered doing this, but it is less convenient than the screw on type.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canong
Junior Member
20 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Mar 17, 2013 22:59 |  #25

For example, Look at this photo I have taken with the 16-35 mk2. I am quite happy with this photo.

I am just a hobbyist, so I didnt know how to describe this photo, but it gives me a dynamic feel. Can the 17-40L perform to the same extent at smaller aperatures?

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8385/8566752413_4e620b152d_h.jpg

AlanU wrote in post #15724787 (external link)
Too bad you experienced a bad copy.

Wider apertures the 16-35 has a nice micro contrast to the image. The 17-40L seems to be as sharp but lacks the micro contrast. It seems to have a "sharp" image like older generation canon lenses. Almost like comparing a 24L vs 24Lmk2.

Smaller apertures they are both excellent. Barrel distortion is probably the only complaint at wider angles.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Mar 17, 2013 23:24 |  #26

What is the 17-40mm edge sharpness like compared to the 16-35mm II? I see a lot of resolution graphs that show the 17-40mm is quite soft at the edges until f11. But how apparent is this in real world?


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

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

12,827 views & 0 likes for this thread
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM vs. EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
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 kubo456
837 guests, 188 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.