Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (2)

Shooting on Sony A7iii with adaptor.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/29uw​YK7

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2cg8​geT

I thought I had made my mind up to get the 16-35mm F/4, until I saw this thread. Has anyone here used both to compare??? IS means nothing to me, just care about IQ & focus speed/accuracy.

The 16-35 is better, all round, esp from 16-20mm. However, it's relative desirability has driven the price of 17-40s way down.

Yes. About $250 less. However, if it's a much better lens I'd rather drop the extra $$$. If it were a $1,000, maybe not. In for a penny, in for a pound.

The images on this thread are awesome, looks like you might not be giving up much for the 17-40mm. That's why I wanted to ask someone who has shot with both. I have an old (very old) Tamron 16-35mm & a newer Sigma 17-55mm. Both have served me well but I just went to FF & they're unusable.

Thank you for the info.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18733424
Yes. About $250 less. However, if it's a much better lens I'd rather drop the extra $$$. If it were a $1,000, maybe not. In for a penny, in for a pound.

The images on this thread are awesome, looks like you might not be giving up much for the 17-40mm. That's why I wanted to ask someone who has shot with both. I have an old (very old) Tamron 16-35mm & a newer Sigma 17-55mm. Both have served me well but I just went to FF & they're unusable.

Thank you for the info.

Sure. You can see from the thread this is lens is an old favorite. Wide open at 17mm, though, you are going to see some very weak corners, and the newer model will trounce it there. Through the middle and longer end, however, I don't think there is too much difference, unless you pixel-peep in side-by-side comparison. I actually upgraded to the 16-35 some months ago, and then immediately traded that for a bargain Sigma 12-24, which I LOVED, but it was huge, and as I just switched to Sony, I let it go. Just picked up another copy of the 17-40 with some "micro" peeling on the inner coating layer for about $260. At that price, I'm delighted Anyway, whatever you decide, happy shooting!

Thanks for the input. When you say "........the newer model will trounce it there" are you talking about a new 17-40mm that I don't know of, or the 16-35mm F/4 which I think is about 7 years younger than the 17-40mm???

Thanks

Sorry, I just meant the 16-35. Actually, I think it is an 11 year gap (2003 vs 2014). I guess the 16-35 F4 isn't really new anymore...just seems that way to me.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Great image. Have you thought about B&W for this? It's almost there already.