Helpdebating between the 16-35mm L and the 17-40mm L lenses

Hi,
I am debating between the 16-35mm L and the 17-40mm L lenses for a 5DMII full frame camera. I was just wondering if one is a better performer than the other on a FF body... I may also use it on a 60D as well. Other than the difference in focal length it is good to note that the 16-35mm L is a true Parafocal optic... ergo it mainatins its point of focus when zoomed.
Anyone have both of these and care to comment?

I can't really answer your question in full. I've got a 5D MkII and 16-35mm lens and I can attest that the pairing of these two is a tremendous combination for landscape and architectural photography, and also for some really interesting portrait and animal shots if you get up close enough to your subject (and don't mind some distortion!) Some examples amongst the images on my web site.

I haven't used the 17-40 myself, but reviews I read (plus the all-important f/2.8 capability of the 16-35) caused me to choose this lens when I bought the 5D. My previous camera was a 40D and so I used the 10-22mm on it for wide wide wide angle shots - sadly this (cheaper EF-S) lens was not an option for the 5D...

Do you need the extra stop? - 16-35
No - 17-40

I bought the 17-40mm when I first started out, and then later "upgraded" to the 16-35mm II and shot it for about a year before selling it and re-buying the 17-40mm. They are generally indistinguishable in terms of IQ (most reviews seem to find the 17-40 to be better for landscaping), so it's a pretty easy call if you don't need the 2.8. Take a look at SLR Gear comparisons, Digital Picture Lens Comparisons, and Luminous Landscapes comparisons of both lenses, which are generally similar to my own experience).

jffielde wrote in post #13070530
I bought the 17-40mm when I first started out, and then later "upgraded" to the 16-35mm II and shot it for about a year before selling it and re-buying the 17-40mm. They are generally indistinguishable in terms of IQ (most reviews seem to find the 17-40 to be better for landscaping), so it's a pretty easy call if you don't need the 2.8. Take a look at SLR Gear comparisons, Digital Picture Lens Comparisons, and Luminous Landscapes comparisons of both lenses, which are generally similar to my own experience).

EXACTLY the same situation here. Assuming the OP meant the 16-35 II that is. I found that the IQ of both of Canons UWA zooms is not really perfect either way you go. Add to that the fact that if youre going to be using it for landscape shots, youre going to be shooting at f/8 or smaller to get that DOF, so what goo is the f/2.8 of the 16-35 II going to do for you? Even if youre a wedding photographer or something and you want wide shots in a dimmly lit church or something f/2.8 still wont give you the DOF you might need to get the whole venue in focus. So youll still be shooting at least f/4 or smaller. PLUS that 82mm filter size is a killer! I was happy to sell off the second B+W KSM CPL filter and UV filter I had at 82mm just to support that 16-35 II. Now with 17-40L Im back to my good ole 77mm that all my other L lenses use!

So, long story short, let me save you the time, money and stress and dont bother with 16-35 II and get the 17-40L.

OR, if you MUST have wider, and money is no object: well then, high roller get the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L! Now THERE is an amazing wide angle lens! 14mm with no distortion!? Amazing!