Canon 16-35 f/4L vs. Canon 17-40 f/4L

It's time to buy a ultra-wide angle lens for my full-frame 6D. The 2 contenders that I am considering are the Canon 16-35mm f/4L & the 17-40mm f/4L. The obvious differences between the 2 lens are IS (on the 16-35) & the price. Neither of these factors are game changers for me. My primary concern is IQ on the 6D. With that in mind, I would appreciate your thoughts & recommendations. Thank you so much!

Heya,

The 16-35 F4L IS is a total replacement, better in every way, and is easily one of Canon's best L's for the money (it's priced very nicely, affordable). If you want the best of the two, it's the 16-35 F4L IS.

That said, the 17-40L is a great old lens, still good, and is a great bargain L. Get it if you are budget conscious.

Very best,

Much as I loved my 17-40, MalVeaux is quite right the 16-35 F4 L IS is simply better.

17-40's are nice and cheap second hand these days but the 16-35 F4 is well worth the extra - it is so good that people almost think I know what I am doing! It fully equals the colour rendition of the 17-40 (it's beat feature) but the sharpness is markedly better especially in the corners.

If you can try before you buy then you will see what we are getting at, pound ($) for pound this is one of the best/the best lenses Canon make IMO.

Malveaux and John summed it up nicely.
As I own both, I can certainly vouch for IS.
While shooting inside at the Basilica of all Basilica's, I was able to shoot hand held at 1/4 sec. with wonderfully sharp images. Someone was looking after me...
If you have the cash, whole heartedly the 16-35 f/4 L IS!!!

Thank you so much for your input. The reviews on the 16-35mm suggest exactly what has been said here.

I own the 16-35mm, and previously owned the 17-40L. The 17-40's only advantages are (1) price, (2) smaller size, and (3) a little more reach in focal length. The 16-35 wins in image quality and has image stabilization, which can be useful at times.

The 17-40L is a decent lens for it's current price for someone on a budget. But otherwise, the 16-35 is the clear winner.

I've owned both and used them on my 6D quite extensively. The 16-35 is my most used lens. The sharpness/clarity corner to corner make it much better than the 17-40 and the IS allows me to use it handheld in most situations. It simply rocks!

I also use it on my 7D2 as it's basically a 26-56mm and a great walk around option.

A lower cost alternative on FF is the Tokina 11-16 which works great at 16mm. Corners are better than the 17-40 and it is f/2.8. Their newer 11-20 is similar and works on FF from about 17-20.

The 17-40 is better with flare though.

16-35 f/4L beats them both.

Hated the 17-40L as it was never a sharp lens unless stopped down to f8. I Love the 16-35L f4 IS. I swear it has less distortion at the edges of the image than my 16-35L 2.8II and the 4 stop IS makes for using some ridiculously slow shutter speeds. And, unlike the 17-40L the 16-35L f4 IS is sharp at F4, no need to stop down.

Just a personal view but I use bot the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS and the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2.

When I am in the 24-35mm focal range and not needing F2.8 then I don't automatically reach for the 24-70V2. Yes the 24-70 is better but the 16-35 F4 is so close (IMO) that it is a credit to Canon to produce a lens like this at this price.

canon's UWs went from being a joke to the best on the planet. I buy the best I can afford. the price difference is a few hundred. buy the best.

a third party crop zoom an "alternative" for a guy inquiring about FF zooms? wow. must be a slow day in the cubicle

I cant tell the difference but I don't look too hard these days. all my lenses are great at any length or aperture. I don't even think about it anymore.

If buying an ultrawide for a 6D right now, I would go for the 16-35F4 IS. I would do it for the IS and sharper corners, according to reviews.
However, I don't use my 17-40L enough to justify the upgrade. I also prefer the range, smaller size, and lighter weight of the 17-40. I have been happy with my copy. Perhaps I am easy to please, but mine is sharp to the corners when stopped down to F8.

I had the 17-40 f4L in past and it was not sharp in the corners and more distortion.
The 16-35 F4L IS was perfectly sharp in the corners, but very expensive.
I sold it recently, in future I will probably the Laowa Venus Optics 12 2.8 Zero D (for the 12mm & f2.8), autofocus isn't needed anyway for a wide-angle.

Samyang is also famous for it's price/quality, but moustache distortion (correctable)
Irix has a 15 2.4 lens also now.

I'm more fan of prime wide angle lenses, less weight, compact, sharper, less expensive.