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 11 Nov 2013 (Monday) 16:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35mm vs 17-40mm on FF

 
NCHANT
Goldmember
3,009 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2117
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Nov 12, 2013 17:10 |  #31

w00tabulous! wrote in post #16444629 (external link)
Thanks for the input so far everyone. I still have the 10-22mm so it would be possible to convert it to use with a FF body, but from what i read i could damage my FF camera (and possibly 1.3) if im not careful. When shooting at wider than 12mm the rear element can touch the mirror and i'm not willing to take this risk, because this is just the thing that would happen to me ;) So, i think i'll add it to the marketplace instead. Please continue the 17-40mm vs 15-35mm discussion, because i havent made up my mind about those two yet. Thank again!

I use my 10-22mm on my 6D and it's awesome, very sharp in the corners stopped down to ƒ8, softer wide open but that's ok for what I shoot most of the time. Would love to get a 16-35mm but I think I will just eventually settle not he Samyang 14mm ƒ2.8 :)

You can see some 10-22mm shots on FF here: http://www.flickr.com …k/sets/72157634​466773339/ (external link)

Scott M wrote in post #16444867 (external link)
Since the 10-22mm and 17-40L are about the same price, I never understood why anyone would want to modify the 10-22 for use on FF. Just sell it and use the funds to buy a 17-40L -- that is what I did. Having some focal length overlap with a 24-xx zoom can be quite convenient, as it can reduce the number of lens changes.

I modified mine as I still have my crop camera (600D) so it's handy using it on both cameras. IMHO the 10-22mm is slightly better than the 17-40mm in sharpness.


6D | 600D | A6000 | 10-22mm ƒ3.5-4.5 USM | 24-105mm ƒ4L USM | TM 35mm ƒ1.8 VC | 40mm ƒ2.8 STM | 50mm ƒ1.8 | 85mm ƒ1.8 | 135mm ƒ2L | 200mm ƒ2.8L II | 55-250 ƒ4.5-5.6 II | Sy 24mm ƒ1.4 | Sy XP 14mm ƒ2.4
Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
lehmanncpa
Goldmember
Avatar
1,943 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Nov 12, 2013 17:28 |  #32

w00tabulous! wrote in post #16446333 (external link)
So i think i made up my mind and probably i will buy the 17-40 from this (external link) guy. It's an ok price right?
670 euro's new in store. Minus 70 euros canon cashback = 600 euro's new.
Secondhand 400 euro + b+w uv slim filter.
Is that a proper uv filter btw?
(B&W 010 UV MRC 77mm E UV-filter)

That sounds about right. I would do without the filter and save some money. Besides, you don't need a UV filter for digital cameras since the sensors already have a UV filter. Maybe get a protector or clear filter, but even then, I'd leave it off.

You'll enjoy the lens. It's a great lens.


Alex
Gear List
Feedback
Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,230 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Likes: 318
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Nov 12, 2013 17:33 |  #33

NCHANT wrote in post #16446470 (external link)
I modified mine as I still have my crop camera (600D) so it's handy using it on both cameras. IMHO the 10-22mm is slightly better than the 17-40mm in sharpness.

I still have a crop body, too (7D), but had no need for the 10-22 once I added a 5D3. The combination of the better full frame sensor + 17-40L gives me better results than the 10-22 did on my 7D crop sensor. The 7D is now used exclusively for wildlife when I either need more reach or take two cameras for combined landscape/wildlife shooting.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Avatar
3,723 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 124
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Twin Cities
     
Nov 12, 2013 20:01 |  #34

IMO the only downside to the 16-35 is the cost.


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
Gitzo 1228, 1275, 1558, Lensbaby 3G. Epson 3880, Bags that match my shoes.:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
w00tabulous!
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
199 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Baarn, NL
     
Nov 13, 2013 05:42 |  #35

Thanks everyone! I decided i'll go for the 17-40L now. Maybe if i need the f2.8 in the near future i'll get the 16-35L II instead. We'll see how this works out first ;)


flickr (external link) | w00tabulous! photography (external link) | facebook page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
strykher1025
Member
Avatar
162 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 5
Joined May 2013
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Jan 14, 2014 14:35 |  #36

Just searched and got this thread. I'm on the same boat. I'll be getting rid of my 24-105 soon to get the 16-35/17-40. IDK!!. I'd love to get the 16-35mm, only if I see a used one maybe for around $800USD or less then I can buy the decent B+W filter for it. I already have a 24-105mm with 77mm ND filter, but it is not wide enough for times I do landscapes pix & would love to get the 2.8 for those times I may need it for event shots. I already have a 50 & 85 and maybe getting the 70-200/135L (another issue..LOL) soon. So I see it can be posible. LOL


-Jay
"Fortune favours the bold"
SONY A7Rii | Fuji X-T3 | Canon T3i | Canon 85mm 1.2ii L | Canon 80-200MM 2.8 L | Canon 17-40mm 4 L | EF Rokinon 8mm Fisheye | XF 23mm 1.4 | XF 35mm 2 | XF Rokinon 12mm 2
Facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Gears

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eelnoraa
Goldmember
1,798 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
     
Jan 15, 2014 23:29 |  #37

Flare control on 16-35 II is extremely good. I always purposely include sun in my frame to get that 12 point start shape, never has issue with flare. It should not be a concern.

Let's be honest here. 16-35 is a better lens. Think about it, if they cost the same, I don't think anyone will get 17-40. So the issue is really cost here. Yes cost matters to almost everyone. So it comes down to $$ vs f/2.8 versatility. I think image quality and range is small.

Myself went with 16-35II for f/2.8 versatility. I like wide angle, and I often take one lens mounted on body only. Have 1 more top of light make it quite more useful indoor. But that is just me.


5Di, 5Diii, 28, 50, 85, 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200F2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Jan 16, 2014 04:49 |  #38

eelnoraa wrote in post #16609492 (external link)
Flare control on 16-35 II is extremely good. I always purposely include sun in my frame to get that 12 point start shape, never has issue with flare. It should not be a concern.

Let's be honest here. 16-35 is a better lens. Think about it, if they cost the same, I don't think anyone will get 17-40.

Don't be so sure, cost is not the only factor. There is also weight, size and flare resistance to consider. If you're mainly shooting landscape, flare performance may be more important than 2.8. The 17-40mm is the most flare resistant lens I've ever tried.

In terms of optical performance the lenses are not very different, and Digital Picture suggest the 17-40mm may be slightly sharper. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4 (external link)


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
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Jan 18, 2014 06:55 |  #39

Well this is interesting. Dxomark has finally tested the 17-40mm, now we have some detailed scientific measurements to look at.
And Dxomark is suggesting than the 17-40mm is optically better. It comes in at 14P-Mpix compared to 13P-Mpix for the 16-35mm II.

This is a measure of sharpness across the frame, as and you can see the 17-40mm is sharper at the mid and edge of frame.
Now dxomark is is measure to the edge of the frame, and not the corner of the frame. There are other reviews which have shown the 16-35mm II to have a big advantage in the extreme corners.
Still, for the most of the frame the 17-40mm is sharper, and you can see that in the Digital Picture samples above as well.

So it would appear the 17-40mm is a better buy even in money is not a concern, unless you absolutely require 2.8 for low light shooting.


IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/aK3eFBO.png

IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/Zngq7b2.png

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
strykher1025
Member
Avatar
162 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 5
Joined May 2013
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Jan 22, 2014 15:35 |  #40

I ended up getting the 16-35mm II instead and couldn't be happier. I needed that extra stop and it performs very well at night shoots and even amazing on daylight. It's a great pair for a FF camera. >;D


-Jay
"Fortune favours the bold"
SONY A7Rii | Fuji X-T3 | Canon T3i | Canon 85mm 1.2ii L | Canon 80-200MM 2.8 L | Canon 17-40mm 4 L | EF Rokinon 8mm Fisheye | XF 23mm 1.4 | XF 35mm 2 | XF Rokinon 12mm 2
Facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Gears

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anthon
Senior Member
267 posts
Joined May 2012
     
Jan 22, 2014 17:51 as a reply to  @ post 16444604 |  #41

I think it all boils down to what your preferences are and what other gear you have.

For instance, landscape photographers don't really need f2.8, so 17-40 would make sense.
For low light on the other hand 2.8 will be very useful.
Also, if you have a standard zoom, for instance 24-105 f4 IS, 16-35 will be a better addition, because you will now have 2.8 is 16-35 range. If you already have 24-70 2.8, than only thing you get is 16-24 range. You might just as well go with 17-40 then.

I'm also into UWA, but since I already have Samyang 14mm 2.8, I don't feel like I really need it. 14mm is even wider than 16-35.

I might get rid of 24-105 and get 17-40mm + 35mm 2.0 IS + 50mm 1.4 - but then I'll be stuck with 3 lenses instead of just 1 (it will make a more usable combo though). I do like the concept of 1 all around lens.

You see - there is no easy answer, unless you are loaded with cash. Just think what you will use it for, and make a decision. I'm sure you will be satisfied either way.


Canon 5D mark II Gripped / 17-40mm f4 L / 24-105mm f4 L / Canon 70-200 f4 L / Samyang 14mm 2.8 AE / Pentax SMC 50mm f1.7 / Pentax SMC 28 2.8 / Canon Speedlite 600ex-rt / Canon Speedlite 580ex II / YN560 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grahamclarkphoto
Member
Avatar
183 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2013
Location: San Francisco, California
     
Jan 23, 2014 03:03 |  #42

w00tabulous! wrote in post #16443268 (external link)
Hello,

I'm having a hard time to decide between these two.
i'd like to pickup urbex photography again, but my 24-105mm just isn't wide enough for this purpose (5dIII).
Previously i owned a 7d with the 10-22mm which did an outstanding job.

From what ive read:

16-35mm pro's:
- f2.8
- sharp in edges

16-35mm cons:
- flare
- price
- weight
- 82mm filters

17-40mm pro's:
- weight
- 77mm filters (same as 24-105mm)
- flare control
- price

17-40mm cons:
- f4
- unsharp in edges

Canon NL cashback is giving 200 euro cash back for the 16-35mm and 70 euro for the 17-40mm atm.

Your opinion is mostly appreciated, thanks!

I own the 16 MK1/MK2 and the 17-40.

I use the 17-40 90% of the time due to it being sharper and twice as light.

I uploaded a couple TIFF16BIT files (all 100MB+ each) for you taken on FF with the 17-40 for corner sharpness:

- https://app.box.com/yo​semitewintersunset (external link)
- https://app.box.com/s/​q68372j9jf4texakmwsl (external link)
- https://app.box.com/s/​jnm7j4p5tr5cycqzd6wf (external link)
- https://app.box.com/s/​3z4aq4cx2tbd340b1idy (external link)
- https://app.box.com/s/​5180ejn3k0bzknknh0tp (external link)
- https://app.box.com/s/​ra51rikk1e1ei8khf1y5 (external link)

H.264 from 17-40 on FF (1GB+ of .MOV)

- https://app.box.com/s/​lyizmqlw92aw3ge6tf5i (external link)
- https://app.box.com/s/​fnzt56cbivct9i56ec4n (external link)
- https://app.box.com/s/​rrcfhonmua4hog2ir216 (external link)
- https://app.box.com/s/​dmpe8ansjuf6064bo6pl (external link)


- -
Graham Clark | grahamclarkphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rejay14
Goldmember
Avatar
1,055 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 574
Joined Mar 2009
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario
     
Jan 29, 2014 23:19 as a reply to  @ grahamclarkphoto's post |  #43

I have the 17-40. I think it's awesome. I have yet to utilize it at an event, so I'll decide whether to trade it for the 16-35 then. Comparisons are fine, but the only one I want to see is both at 2.8 ;)

If you are FF and only have the 24-105, the difference will astound you. If you use a flash, the 4.0 will suffice. As in all lenses/bodies, it's a trade-off. Cost/Return.. investment/benefits. It's only worth the extra coin if you need it, not want it. (I want it lol)


1DX Mark II, 5D Mark IV, 40D,Rebel XT :lol:, 70-200L 2.8 IS II, 100-400L IS II,24-105 II L, 100mmL 2.8 IS, 16-35L 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8L II, Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, Sekonic 758DR, Pixma 9500 II, Pixma 9000 II, Think Tank Airport Accelerator v2.0, Canon 600EX-RT x 5, Profoto B1 x 4 with too many modifiers http:// …www.PrestigePhotoPro.c​om (external link) Portfolio (external link)
Concert Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Jan 30, 2014 06:47 |  #44

I had the 17-40L for the past few years and recently upgraded to the 16-35 II...

In my opinion after using multiple copies of each (so I know I did not have a fluke of either)...

Only get the 16-35 if you need f/2.8... That is ALL that it comes down to. Optically, they are near identical to my eyes... Nothing significant anyway...

If you don't need f/2.8, get the 17-40L. Easy as that.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frosticles
Senior Member
Avatar
588 posts
Gallery: 37 photos
Likes: 137
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Sherwood Forest
     
Jan 30, 2014 09:22 as a reply to  @ Invertalon's post |  #45

Just taken delivery of a 16-35 this morning. Haven't had chance to use it yet but am really looking forward to it.


Kind regards, Kevin
My Fickr - http://www.flickr.com/​photos/28825728@N08/ (external link)

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

8,568 views & 0 likes for this thread
16-35mm vs 17-40mm on FF
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 was a spammer, and banned as such!
1177 guests, 286 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.