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 24 Oct 2016 (Monday) 15:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
kitjv
Member
Avatar
220 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Oregon USA
     
Oct 24, 2016 15:22 |  #1

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!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,997 posts
Gallery: 1450 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9409
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Oct 24, 2016 15:31 |  #2

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,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,987 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 612
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Oct 24, 2016 15:48 |  #3

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.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,050 posts
Likes: 177
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Oct 24, 2016 21:47 as a reply to  @ johnf3f's post |  #4

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!!!


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kitjv
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
220 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Oregon USA
     
Oct 25, 2016 06:49 |  #5

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,128 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 213
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Oct 25, 2016 07:45 |  #6

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.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
5,984 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3144
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Oct 25, 2016 08:35 |  #7

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.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Oct 25, 2016 09:17 |  #8

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.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agv8or
Goldmember
Avatar
2,150 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 363
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 25, 2016 15:57 |  #9

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.


Rand

Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,987 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 612
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Oct 25, 2016 16:25 |  #10

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.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,990 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 370
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Oct 25, 2016 17:31 |  #11

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.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,990 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 370
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Oct 25, 2016 17:33 as a reply to  @ n1as's post |  #12

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


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,990 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 370
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Oct 25, 2016 17:35 as a reply to  @ johnf3f's post |  #13

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.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,096 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Aug 2009
     
Oct 26, 2016 11:34 |  #14

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,480 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Oct 26, 2016 18:55 |  #15

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.


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 17-40 F4 L | 24-70 2.8 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
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

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

5,340 views & 8 likes for this thread
Canon 16-35 f/4L vs. Canon 17-40 f/4L
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 Zac21
664 guests, 313 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.