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 08 Jan 2013 (Tuesday) 21:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-40L Vs 16-35L II

 
KarlGB77
Senior Member
556 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Delaware
     
Jan 08, 2013 21:28 |  #1

I just wanted to see what the group thinks of these two Lenses?
I was looking at Digital-Picture and comparing the tests at various aperatures.
Stopped down and at 35mm it appears the 17=40 has an edge.

All in all would you say that they are close?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=3 (external link)

Thanks


Canon 5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, T2i (2), 24-105 f4LIS, 17-40 f4L, 70-200f4L IS, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 100 2.8, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, 15-85 f4-5.6 IS, 60 2.8, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 430 EX II, 580 EX II, Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod w/ 498RC2, Calumet 8121 Tripod, Manfrotto 679B Monopod w/ 234 RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mr.Noisy
Senior Member
Avatar
287 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 31
Joined Aug 2012
Location: UK™
     
Jan 09, 2013 00:27 |  #2

I'm selling a 17-40L to make way for a 16-35L II, I shoot in old ruins, in dark area's plus a few landscapes and for me personally the f2.8 will be better in the low light of ruins especially early morning, a friend shoots the 16-35 and her images just look a bit sharper, I will miss the 17-40 but im excited about getting a 16-35. :D


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Saint728
Goldmember
Avatar
2,892 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Honolulu Hawaii
     
Jan 09, 2013 00:58 |  #3

I had both and I sold the 16-35mm as I didn't need the f/2.8. I think the 17-40mm when stopped down has a slight edge anyway, especially around f/8. Even in the corners it was better then the 16-35mm.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick


Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III | 17-40mm f/4.0L | 70-200mm f/2.8L USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | 300mm f/4.0L IS
Click Here To See My Gear
Click here to see my Flickr (external link)
http://www.runryder.co​m/helicopter/gallery/9​019/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,484 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Jan 09, 2013 01:11 as a reply to  @ Saint728's post |  #4

I had 16-35 II and found double price not worth for 1 stop faster. Sold it for 17-40, missed thevstop and ended up with the allmighty Tokina 16-28 2.8, best of the 3!


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Jan 09, 2013 01:59 |  #5

CanonYouCan wrote in post #15464535 (external link)
I had 16-35 II and found double price not worth for 1 stop faster. Sold it for 17-40, missed thevstop and ended up with the allmighty Tokina 16-28 2.8, best of the 3!

I'd love to get the tokina if it only accepted filters... I don't get why Canon managed to make a lens that is just as wide, has the same aperture, and even has more zoom, which takes filters whilst the Tokina has a silly front element.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bratkinson
Senior Member
643 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Western MA
     
Jan 09, 2013 06:23 |  #6

I love my 16-35 II. I do a lot of indoor work and when my 24-105 isn't wide enough, the 16-35 fills the bill with limited wide angle distortion...especiall​y on my 60D crop. On my 5D3, it's fantastic!

My only complaint is the 82mm filter size. I only have a 77mm CPL, so if I encounter a need for a CPL with that lens, I'm screwed. However, I'm considering a step-down ring and use the 77 CPL, and simply crop out the vignetting. If I ever start using ND filters, I may just stay with 77mm as well.


"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." General George S Patton, Jr 1885-1945

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,264 posts
Likes: 2301
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jan 09, 2013 06:26 |  #7

Need a UWA for a FF camera, get the 17-40. Need a UWA and f/2.8, get the 16-36. Other than at f/2.8, they are really close in performance.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JustinPoe
Senior Member
707 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2008
     
Jan 09, 2013 09:11 |  #8

gjl711 wrote in post #15465052 (external link)
Need a UWA for a FF camera, get the 17-40. Need a UWA and f/2.8, get the 16-36. Other than at f/2.8, they are really close in performance.

Agreed.

It comes down to needing 2.8 or not. I bought a 16-35L II to replace my 17-40L and realized that the 16-35 isn't any sharper at all. Sometimes I felt like my 17-40L was almost sharper at f8 - f16. Pixel peeping and all, they're about identical IQ wise.

Bottom line, you either need 2.8, or you don't.


500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lehmanncpa
Goldmember
Avatar
1,943 posts
Likes: 33
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Jan 09, 2013 09:42 as a reply to  @ JustinPoe's post |  #9

I personally like the 77mm filter thread on my 17-40. It matches nicely with the 24-105. I have a lot of filters (CPL and various ND) and it's convenient not to have to carry step up rings or double up on filters. The 17-40 is a fantastic lens. The industry has led us to believe that the fastest lenses are the best lenses and it isn't always true.


Alex
Gear List
Feedback
Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,837 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2629
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jan 09, 2013 11:16 as a reply to  @ lehmanncpa's post |  #10

all this will be a mute point after the 14-24 is released:lol:


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LeeRatters
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,137 posts
Likes: 3376
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Jan 09, 2013 14:51 |  #11

I think the f/2.8 is the deciding factor too.

I don't need f/2.8 with wide angle so 17-40L for me. Plus same filter size as the 24-105L I sold so no need to spend another £200 on filters. I then bought a Sigma 70-200/2.8 which also takes the same thread :)


>> Flickr << (external link)


>> Instagram<< (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Jan 09, 2013 15:22 |  #12

Am I the only one that also takes the awesome 14 point star burst into consideration when looking at the 16-35 II? If you are shooting any scene with bright points of light while stopped down, the difference is very noticeable.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Avatar
12,625 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 123
Joined May 2009
Location: On The Roads Across America
     
Jan 09, 2013 15:34 |  #13

Mark-B wrote in post #15467213 (external link)
Am I the only one that also takes the awesome 14 point star burst into consideration when looking at the 16-35 II? If you are shooting any scene with bright points of light while stopped down, the difference is very noticeable.

Nope... most just look for corner sharpness, etc..

There are lots of qualities to the 16-35 that put it miles ahead of the 17-40. The 16-35 is the perfect night lens, it handles flare and bad light better than any other lens I've used.

You couldn't get me to go back to a 17-40, nope, nuh uh...

But, as the bottomline of this very common topic, if you don't need these features, and/or want to save money, then get the 17-40.

But, these two lenses are different in a lot of respects and many people forget that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KarlGB77
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
556 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Delaware
     
Jan 09, 2013 20:01 |  #14

Good stuff folks.
As you can see, I have the 17-40 and as Todd stated, the 16=35 does have some attributes that give it an edge.
Even some of the Canon folks I was on a destination workshop said that why pay twice the price.
A new focal range such as the 14-24 would be interesting to say the least.
The problem is the prices they are charging for these lenses nowadays.
WOW!
Whats the new 14=24 going to go for?
Let me guess.

$1,549

LOL

I need to use this lens more often.
It's hard to break away from switching back and forth with the 24-105 to the 70-200 II
I'm glad I have the 17-40 though.
I also have to say that it using a 77mm filter made this lens a no brainer when the two above were also the same.

24mm seems to work well on my 5D3.


Canon 5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, T2i (2), 24-105 f4LIS, 17-40 f4L, 70-200f4L IS, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 100 2.8, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, 15-85 f4-5.6 IS, 60 2.8, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 430 EX II, 580 EX II, Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod w/ 498RC2, Calumet 8121 Tripod, Manfrotto 679B Monopod w/ 234 RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Avatar
12,625 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 123
Joined May 2009
Location: On The Roads Across America
     
Jan 09, 2013 20:08 |  #15

I'd buy a 14-24 for 1500 in a second! I'm expecting the price to be something more along the line of $2399.00

I think the lens will be targeted towards a niche market just like the TS-e line and priced accordingly.




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

4,097 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-40L Vs 16-35L II
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 TopoChico
739 guests, 284 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.