Would the 17-40L be an upgrade to the 11-16?

Before you start telling me it's a different focal length...

I added a 5D to my kit 40D and I'm still stocked with crop lenses. I haven't actually tried it yet, but afaik, the 11-16 should work more or less on FF at 16mm. However, that might not be an insanely practical solution. I like having the 17mm - 40mm option as UWA on FF and being able to use it as a normal lens on my 40D.
I'm looking to downscale my lens collection a bit, and if I add the 17-40, that could replace both the 11-16 for UWA and the 17-40 as a normal lens on my 40D (which I'm keeping).
I'm just wondering if the 17-40 will be as good on a 5D as the 11-16 has been on my 40D. It's a great lens obviously, but the 11-16 at 16mm could still give me the UWA option.

Any thoughts or suggestions on this? Nothing's set in stone, but I'm just looking for some options to consolidate 9 of my lenses into about 6.

I was thinking of ending up with:
- 17-40
- 28 1.8
- a 50mm (not sure which - different story)
- 85 1.8 (only if I'm sticking with the 50 1.8 for now)
- 100mm macro
- something longer (either 70-200 f4 IS or 300 f4 IS)

The 17-40 is an amazing, sharp wide lens from all reports on FF.

Make sene to sell your Tokina then.

11-16 is f2.8 wide open and the 17-40, if u really need the wide aperture, the 17-40 would probably be a downgrade. But in terms of focal length they are both about the same when mounted on crop & FF respectively.

But if i were you, i would get the 17-40 and sell off the 11-16. The 17-40 would make good use of your 5D and it definitely would be a joy to use for landscapes

litlefiter wrote in post #12090061
11-16 is f2.8 wide open and the 17-40, if u really need the wide aperture, the 17-40 would probably be a downgrade.

Yes but 4.0 on a full frame is the same or better than 2.8 on a crop body.

17-40L is uh-mazing on FF.

Refresh Image wrote in post #12090350
Yes but 4.0 on a full frame is the same or better than 2.8 on a crop body.

Huh?

17-40L isn't all that sharp at the edges. I traded mine for a Tokina 11-16. Loving it, but I only use 7D. I think you'll love the 17-40 on the 5D and can still use it for walkaround on a 40D. If you have money to burn look at the 16-35L

Scapevision wrote in post #12090488
17-40L isn't all that sharp at the edges. I traded mine for a Tokina 11-16. Loving it, but I only use 7D. I think you'll love the 17-40 on the 5D and can still use it for walkaround on a 40D. If you have money to burn look at the 16-35L

This I do not have, but I do realize that the 11-16 is probably a tad sharper (at least wide open) than the 17-40. I'm just wondering if it's enough to matter.

I think I'll just have to go for a 17-40 if the store gives me a good trade-in.

I'd go with the 17-40L for sure. I have both the 17-40L and the 16-35L II and to be honest prefer the 17-40L due to the filter ring size. I notice no difference between the 2 lenses sharpness wise in the real world. And have no use for f/2.8 in landscape. And for those that argue it would help indoors it doesn't really help THAT much and a flash is way more useful if it's allowed. The only advantage I'd give the 16-35 II is that it does 16mm which is actually quite a bit wider in tight environments. I know you didn't ask about the 16-35L but I figure it would help to show you that the 17-40L is a great lens and great bang for the buck.

Filter size is indeed be a huge selling point to me because I already have a 77mm B+W 10 stops ND and a Hoya HD CPL + clear protect (when shooting in wind/sandy conditions).
I must admit I've used f/2.8 on the 11-16 quite a lot, but with the 28 1.8 on FF, that's probably wide enough for 90% of the indoor shots. For the rest, it'll be bumping the ISO or using a tripod.

Any thoughts on the rest of my lens roadmap compared to my current gear (see sig)?

got mine 3 years strong now and its worth every penny

I've emailed the store where I bought my 11-16 to ask for an estimate to trade in my 11-16 (still absolutely mint) for a 17-40, but I might just sell it privately.

Now that I think about it, the 17-40 will probably also get 95% of what my 17-50 gets me on crop, so I decided to take the plunge and sell my 11-16, 17-50, 80-400, takumar 50 1.4 and Tokina 35mm macro (damn, but something has to give and I want to downscale to 5 - 6 lenses max).
For this I'll get a 17-40L and a 85 f/1.8.
After that, the only crop lens I'll have left will be the 50-135 which seems to make sense since I'll never be able to find one again... It's relatively compact, so will go nicely together on my 40D with a wide lens on my 5D. Best of both worlds (for now).

If anyone is interested, reminder that I'm situated in the Netherlands, so probably only accepting bids from Netherlands, Belgium and Germany

The 17-40 is OK, not great, imho, on a FF. Unfortunately there is not much to choose from in that range, for Canon. It's the weakest lens in my lineup. Mine gets used mostly wide open so your use and results may differ. If good flare control is not an issue I would look at the Tokina 16-28, if you can find one.

Flare control is kind of an issue (the only thing occasionally bugging me with the 11-16), and I also like to use filters (77mm would be nice, or I'd have to buy a new CPL, 10 stops ND and a clear protect when shooting in nasty winds). The 17-40 wins in all that, and I agree, there's not that much choice around. Then again, it's not even that much more expensive than an 11-16. I think if I sell my 11-16 and 17-50, I'll have a few euros left over after buying the 17-40.