17-40L or 16-35L???

I'm ready to jump on a new lens and ad to my coLlection. I have been looking at the EF 17-40L f/4.0 for a while, but now I see that Canon also as released an EF 16-35L f/2.8 II lens, so now I am in a bit of a quandary. Naturally price is always a consideration and the 14-40 is about 1/2 the price of the 16-35. This will be a compliment to my EF 24-105L and my other lenses that I use with my 40D.

I have no problem with the 24-105, which is also f/4, so all things considered I'm leaning toward the 17-40, which will also save me a few $$$ that I can put toward an EF 100-400L after I sell my EF 70-300 (non-L).

What do you think? Am I making sense?

Thanks for your input.
Jim

Same here. Think Im going to snag a 17-40. I REALLY like my 24-105 too...then I'll have more $$ for my 100-400L (while keeping my 70-200 Sigma f2.8 OS)

unless you need 2.8, 17-40 is as good as 16-35. I would go for 17-40

I borrowed 17-40 from a friend in the past and wasnt too thrilled with it. From my research 16-35 is supposed to have much higher IQ.

17-40 is 77mm filter thread so for users of 24-105mm it is a perfect match, no need to buy other filters and / or adapters.

dkizzle wrote in post #14707692
17-40 is 77mm filter thread so for users of 24-105mm it is a perfect match, no need to buy other filters and / or adapters.

The filter thread is another consideration. judging by the specs, it would make sense that the IQ is better on the 16-35 (12 groups/16 elements vs. 9 and 12, resp.).

Thanks everyone for the feedback (so far)...

Jim

Is the 16-35mm A LOT sharper than the 17-40mm on a crop?

I have the 17-40 (& the 24-105). I said I would never need anything with a wider aperture of F4 for what essentially is a landscape lens. That and the 17-40 is my least used lens. But, if I had the purchase over again I would defintely go 16-35 F2.8. The reason is if I am inside and one of my wide aperture primes is too long I reach for the widest lens, the 17-40. This is where I then find F4 a bit of a limitation. Same with the 24-105, only moreso and I have just ordered a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 to replace it (I could not get a Canon mark 1, everybody up here is out of them). If you can see your way to get the dearer lens you will probably be a lot happier in the long term. You won't ever have to think "gee, I wished I'd got the 16-35".

the 16-35 was on sale over the Christmas season, I tried it side by side with a 17-40. I kept the 17-40, there just wasn't $1k worth of additional goodness in the 16-35.

LunaP wrote in post #14707944
Is the 16-35mm A LOT sharper than the 17-40mm on a crop?

Your 10-22 lens is as good on the 50D as the 16-35 is on a FF. I shoot both and really like both. The 16-35 wins in low light though.

I'm also considering adding a UWA lens to my line up as, at present, my 24-105 is the widest I have to fit my 1Div. Whilst I can certainly see the point of the faster lens benefit, it is almost twice the price of the 17-40 f/4 here in the UK which makes me think I'll go for the 17-40, especially having followed the lens thread on here and seen the stunning results many users get with it. TBH, I'm not concerned to use high ISO with a f/4 lens, shot in RAW and then processed you can still get useable results. Forgive me for posting this shot in two threads but to illustrate the point, 7D with 24-105mm f/4; 105mm @ f/4; ISO 12800:

pbelarge wrote in post #14708058
Your 10-22 lens is as good on the 50D as the 16-35 is on a FF. I shoot both and really like both. The 16-35 wins in low light though.

Hmmm... I just got the 17-40mm and took some test shots and compared against my 10-22mm (https://photography-on-the.net …35&highlight=17​-40mm+soft). Someone mentioned that my 10-22mm is not as sharp as their copies. Quite shocking...

So, there is not much difference between the 17-40mm and the 16-35mm in terms of sharpness?

Judging by your post (the red "L" in "collection", etc) you sound like you just want an L lens to have a pretty lens with a red ring on it. And that's fine...but I think for CROP bodies, there are better options out there for your money...the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC USD (would be my #1 choice) and the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS come to mind.

Also, having owned both, the 17-40L is inferior to the 16-35L II in just about every way. Overall sharpness is down, corner sharpness sucks on the 17-40L, it's a stop slower, and from what I can remember it had a touch more CA. I was thoroughly unimpressed with that lens when I had it and I love my 16-35L II.

However, I got these lenses when I left crop behind...for crop, I think you could do much smarter things with your money than blow it on a 16-35L II.

About 3 weeks ago my local camera store let me take some test shots with the 16-35mm, the 17-40mm, the 17-55mm, the Tamron 17-50mm, Sigma 17-50mm, and the new Tamron 24-70mm. These indoor shots of the store were all taken at maximum width and lens wide open for each using the 7D. So, for what it's worth, here are samples. None of these look very sharp when I preview them, but they are on Flickr, so who knows.

16-35

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/7​559541188/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/7​559541068/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/7​559540708/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/7​559540568/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/7​559540886/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/7​559541330/

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14708907
Judging by your post (the red "L" in "collection", etc) you sound like you just want an L lens to have a pretty lens with a red ring on it. And that's fine...but I think for CROP bodies, there are better options out there for your money...the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC USD (would be my #1 choice) and the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS come to mind.

Also, having owned both, the 17-40L is inferior to the 16-35L II in just about every way. Overall sharpness is down, corner sharpness sucks on the 17-40L, it's a stop slower, and from what I can remember it had a touch more CA. I was thoroughly unimpressed with that lens when I had it and I love my 16-35L II.

However, I got these lenses when I left crop behind...for crop, I think you could do much smarter things with your money than blow it on a 16-35L II.

I agreed completely 100%.

I used to have 17-40 (3x) and kept switching between 17-40 and 16-35 (2x) for awhile (thought of saving money too). But now I would not come back to 17-40 since it is hunting on 5D2, 7D,1D4 and even on 5D3 and have decided to keep 16-35L II.