Another Lens Question - 16-35mm or 17-40mm

Hello People,

I'm considering on buying a lens for landscape photography so I was looking at these two lenses... the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 and the Canon 17-40mm f/4. The 16-35mm costs a lot more from the 17-40mm so I want to make a wise choice here. The money is not a problem so I'm not considering that small detail. What would you suggest?...

17-40, as I never use anything less than f/7.1 on my UWA for landscapes.

I assume you are on a full frame (because if you're not, my answers are different)...

For pure landscaping, smaller aperture, ultra wide, the 17-40mm, based on bang for the buck.

Money no object, the 16-35mm II (not the original 16-35mm I). It produces slightly better IQ (not defendable based on price), it is significantly wider, and it has 2.8 (which isn't very useful for landscape but will result in more "bag time" for the lens as you use it for walkaround).

I upgraded my beloved 17-40mm for the 16-35mm II. My new UWA gets in the bag more because of the 2.8. I bring it to local/family events and use it for random outdoor shots in town.

If you're on a crop, I'd look at the 17-55 because it is sharper than the 17-40 and it does 2.8, or the 15-85 for the focal-length versitility (and especially for landscape use). For pure landscape on a crop, look at the 10-22.

Im in FF... have the 5DMKII...

If you need 2.8 then you need 2.8. For landscapes - you dont.

why would you get a 35l to photo food and a 16-35 to photo landscapes

So those are your main options (17-40 or 16-35). I have the 5D II as well. I started with the 17-40. I wanted more width, specifically, I wanted my horizontal FOV at or above 90 degrees. So I upgraded to the 16-35mm II. I was pleasantly surprised that my use increased significantly because the lens was usable in more situations (due to 2.8).

I've since opted to go manual for certain landscape opportunities. I now have a Samyang/Rokinon 14mm, which I find wonderful for landscape. It beats the 17-40 and 16-35 if your are into width and corner-to-corner sharpness. I also picked up a 24mm TS-E II, which is wonderful for edge-to-edge and has tilt / shift options as well. Tilt and Shift provide some unique results.

You stated that money wasn't much of a barrier so I thought I provide some 'food for thought' for future consideration.

Zeiss 21......

I use 17-40L on my 5D2 for landscape, and I never consider 16-35:
1. As most landscape shoots will be taken on f/8 - f/11, no reason I get a f/2.8 lens;
2. 17-40L is 77mm Vs 82mm filter size on 16-35, as I have lots 77mm filters already; and I don't want to start new 82mm filter collection again.
3. @ 17mm f/8 Vs 16mm @ f/8, 17-40L looks a bit sharper to me:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

Between the two and if money is no object then the 16-35 mII gets my vote. I have owned both. I sold the 17-40 and still have the 16-35.

If money is no issue toss your Canon junk in the bin and upgrade to Hasselblad!

sloanbj wrote in post #13206764
If money is no issue toss your Canon junk in the bin and upgrade to Hasselblad!

Are you sure ?

With only limited lenses from Hasselblad, noway it can replace Canon.

hillavoider wrote in post #13206365
why would you get a 35l to photo food and a 16-35 to photo landscapes

Because the 35mm is a prime lens and it's f/1.4... for food photography is better.

sloanbj wrote in post #13206764
If money is no issue toss your Canon junk in the bin and upgrade to Hasselblad!

In that case... money IS an issue....

I have borrowed the 17-40 from a friend before and just rented the 16-35 for a trip to DC. I'd agree with others that for pure landscapes the 2.8 aperture doesn't benefit.I found overall quality from the two lenses to be very similar. But I found the faster glass to be very useful for indoor shots in museums & monuments.

So if money is no object and you think you might use it indoors I'd go with the 16-35. If you'll strictly be outdoors I'd pick the 17-40. It has great quality and is a bit lighter.