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

tancanon58 wrote in post #14709550
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.

Must be defective, AF was always super reliable and spot on on my copy with 20D, 7D and 5D3. Much more reliable in fact than 24-70L.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14709322
I agreed completely 100%.

x2... much better options on a crop.

Unless you are planning to move to FF, I would recommend pairing the 24-105 with a 10-22.

I want to eventually go to a FF, which is why I am not buying any EF-S lenses.

What do you think of the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM?

Constant f/2.8
13 Groups/17 Elements
7 Blades

It has a narrower view angle than both the Canon 16-35 and the 17-40. I don't really understand View Angle.

It's priced $110 less than the 17-40.

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.

I appreciate your input, but the reason I like the 17-40 is not because of the pretty red line. I have a 24-105 (my only L lens of the 4 lenses that I own) and I have been very happy with it. The AF is fast and quiet and the results are excellent, at least in my opinion. In additionally I am planning to move to a FF eventually, so I am only buying lenses that will fit FF bodies and have already gotten rid of the EF-S lenses I had. I am also considering the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM, which does not have a nice red line, but to be honest I prefer Canon lenses. I have not considered a Tamron, but I will look at what they have too.

JIm

When I got my 5dII I purchased a 17-40 shortly thereafter because of the good price compared to the 16-35. I hardly used it, found the focal length okay, but I didn't care for the overall handling of the lens, and wasn't really satisfied with the pictures coming out of it. It wasn't just for landscapes as I see so many people state, it was also to get shots of entire rooms indoors, pictures that show all five kids in a room and the things they are doing instead of just one or two. I enjoyed the focal length, but almost gave up on it thinking I was expecting something that I just couldn't get and that I should just realize it's a landscape lens like everyone said.

Well, I rented a 16-35 II and my experience was completely different. I shot with the lens, enjoyed the results, and enjoyed using the lens. The experience of taking pictures to me is fun and exciting, and the 16-35 made it much more enjoyable. Very fast AF, great color rendition, etc. I sold the 17-40 I had purchased new and got a used 16-35 from someone here. Definitely cost a few hundred bucks to make that upgrade, but I'm so happy I did.

Ephur wrote in post #14711333
When I got my 5dII I purchased a 17-40 shortly thereafter because of the good price compared to the 16-35. I hardly used it, found the focal length okay, but I didn't care for the overall handling of the lens, and wasn't really satisfied with the pictures coming out of it. It wasn't just for landscapes as I see so many people state, it was also to get shots of entire rooms indoors, pictures that show all five kids in a room and the things they are doing instead of just one or two. I enjoyed the focal length, but almost gave up on it thinking I was expecting something that I just couldn't get and that I should just realize it's a landscape lens like everyone said.

Well, I rented a 16-35 II and my experience was completely different. I shot with the lens, enjoyed the results, and enjoyed using the lens. The experience of taking pictures to me is fun and exciting, and the 16-35 made it much more enjoyable. Very fast AF, great color rendition, etc. I sold the 17-40 I had purchased new and got a used 16-35 from someone here. Definitely cost a few hundred bucks to make that upgrade, but I'm so happy I did.

Wow. I had the opposite experience having first rented the 16-35 (granted it was not the II edition but rather the original) and then purchased the 17-40. Very disappointed in the 16-35. Got the 17-40 and never looked back. Use it all the time on the 5D2 and certainly not just for landscapes. Sure the corners are not always perfect but that is easily correctable. It is indeed a great multi purpose lens. And, compared to my other lenses, it is light and compact.

Ephur wrote in post #14711333
When I got my 5dII I purchased a 17-40 shortly thereafter because of the good price compared to the 16-35. I hardly used it, found the focal length okay, but I didn't care for the overall handling of the lens, and wasn't really satisfied with the pictures coming out of it. It wasn't just for landscapes as I see so many people state, it was also to get shots of entire rooms indoors, pictures that show all five kids in a room and the things they are doing instead of just one or two. I enjoyed the focal length, but almost gave up on it thinking I was expecting something that I just couldn't get and that I should just realize it's a landscape lens like everyone said.

Well, I rented a 16-35 II and my experience was completely different. I shot with the lens, enjoyed the results, and enjoyed using the lens. The experience of taking pictures to me is fun and exciting, and the 16-35 made it much more enjoyable. Very fast AF, great color rendition, etc. I sold the 17-40 I had purchased new and got a used 16-35 from someone here. Definitely cost a few hundred bucks to make that upgrade, but I'm so happy I did.

It's almost a grand, actually. Add the cost of 82mm filters and it's $1k+.
What part of experience with 16-35 was more enjoyable, do you use F2.8 a lot?

Eastport wrote in post #14711924
Got the 17-40 and never looked back.

^ My story.

a_roadbiker wrote in post #14711234
I want to eventually go to a FF, which is why I am not buying any EF-S lenses.

What do you think of the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM?

Constant f/2.8
13 Groups/17 Elements
7 Blades

It has a narrower view angle than both the Canon 16-35 and the 17-40. I don't really understand View Angle.

The Sigma is designed for crop cameras, not full frame. It will mount on FF, but you'll likely get plenty of vignetting, especially on the wide end.

It has a narrow FOV than the Canon's because the Canon's list the FOV on a FF camera, wheras the Sigma lists the FOV on a crop camera.

I dont know how critical people are but I consider myself sometimes painfully particular.

Anyhow I will have to say my 17-40L I owned was a complete pleasure to own. Sharpness was incredible wideopen and the colors were spectacular. I sold it because I simply needed/wanted faster glass for indoor use for events. Although a high percentage of my photography with this lens is in good light. This is where I struggled indeciding of selling my 17-40L

I was pleasantly suprised that my new 16-35Lmk2 met my IQ demands and was on par with my 17-40L. Only difference is f/2.8 constant aperture and I had to buy a b+w 82mm filter.

If f/4 suites your shooting style I'd say the 17-40L is an incredible lens.

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14712114
It's almost a grand, actually. Add the cost of 82mm filters and it's $1k+.
What part of experience with 16-35 was more enjoyable, do you use F2.8 a lot?

Well, I overpaid for my 17-40, paid $900 out the door for it since I bought it at a local camera shop. I got my 16-35II for 1300 even. So the difference to me wasn't close to $1,000. I hadn't invested in any filters for the 17-40 though they are def more expensive for the 16-35.

I use 2.8 frequently, but not constantly.

I found the AF to be significantly faster. The rings felt nicer (smoother). The 17-40 felt more like the zoom on my Tamron 28-75, which I don't like. A 24-70 is the final zoom on my wish list. I'm happy with the IQ from my Tamron, but it's not as enjoyable to shoot with as my Canon L zooms.

The images also to me seemed to come out with less distortion. Sharpness, even through the corners, to me there wasn't any real discernible difference. Color rendition and contrast seemed to be better (particularly indoors) to me. Who knows though, I paid more for it so maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me!

How sharp is sharp enough for you? My 17-40mm is sharper than my 10-22mm or 28-135mm, but it's still not as sharp as I was expecting from an L lens. But then, I don't have other L lenses to compare... I know you say it doesn't make sense to have this lens on a crop, but I got it because I want to upgrade to a 5DmkII in the near future.

Okay, so with all things considered, having the 24-105 and wanting a wider lens, would it be better to consider a Canon or Sigma 20mm prime?

Jim

Good conversation, BTW...

If you just need a UWA zoom for just landscape, then for around $700, the 17-40 is all you need on Full frame. Most landscape are shot from f/8 and smaller aperture anyway so the 2.8 is kind of pointless because there is little to no difference on the smaller apertures between either lenses. The 16-35 is your choice if you need low light capability. If you are going to stay with a cropped APS-C camera for a while, I would recommend the 10-22 to supplement your 24-105 and 70-300.

For 90% of users, the 17-40 makes a lot more sense. You can compare sharpness here http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0