16-35L vs 17-40L

Looking at getting a decent wide angle lens for my camera and i am currently debating as to which one of these two lenses i should get.
aside for the obvious smaller aperture...why is the 16-35 better than the 17-40?

My advice - do a search (POTN & google) to find all the info you could need, there are literally hundreds of threads and comparisons out there.

My research led me to get the 17-40 (again... 3rd time). I've never owned the 16-35. The 17-40 has similar sharpness, is smaller/lighter, and a lot cheaper. The only thing you lose is one stop. I will mostly use the lens for static subjects, so decided I didn't need the extra stop.

I am debating the same 2 lens

Who says there are no more original question on POTN????

Hi, I can't comment on the 16-35MM but I have been very pleasantly surprised with the results fro the 17-40mm. I have found it to be very sharp - and absolutely fine in the corners. I use it stopped down between f11 and f22 for landscapes.

kobeson wrote in post #15328275
My advice - do a search (POTN & google) to find all the info you could need, there are literally hundreds of threads and comparisons out there.

This is very true.

I'll throw my 2 cents in though to help make things easier. Basically, if you feel like you are going to NEED f/2.8, get the 16-35L II. I personally feel like the lens is grossly overpriced, but if you need f/2.8...then you need it. Spending lots of time within the landscape photographic community, the 17-40L is the clear favorite because it's (more) affordable, lighter and just as sharp as the 16-35L II when stopped down. Just don't buy the 16-35 thinking it will be sharper, you'll be unhappy.

When it comes down to it, you either need f/2.8 or you don't depending on what you shoot. I don't need it, so I got the 17-40, simple as that.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15328951
This is very true.

I'll throw my 2 cents in though to help make things easier. Basically, if you feel like you are going to NEED f/2.8, get the 16-35L II. I personally feel like the lens is grossly overpriced, but if you need f/2.8...then you need it. Spending lots of time within the landscape photographic community, the 17-40L is the clear favorite because it's (more) affordable, lighter and just as sharp as the 16-35L II when stopped down. Just don't buy the 16-35 thinking it will be sharper, you'll be unhappy.

When it comes down to it, you either need f/2.8 or you don't depending on what you shoot. I don't need it, so I got the 17-40, simple as that.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If you're a landscape shooter and star photography isn't your thing, the 17-40 is the clear winner. But if youre a more general shooter and you think the f2.8 would be useful for you at these focal lengths, then you don't have much choice. You either need f2.8 or you don't, buy accordingly.

i had them both, returned the 16-35. IQ wasn't better than the 17-40 on my two FF bodies, filters were big and expensive (and I didn't have any in that size) and I didn't need f2.8.

Mostly outdoor/land scape, then get 17-40mm.
Mostly Indoor/low light situation, get 16-35mm.

I recently covered my company's holiday party. 16-35L + 50L was a great combo, and got good results with both lens w/ and w/o the use of flash.

My quick summation = Need f/2.8? get the 16-35. Need $$? get the 17-40. Both will deliver really nice images from f/4 on up. Nuff said.

1mm difference and f/2.8,it really depends on your usage.
If you'll take photos indoor,f/2.8 might be a better choice,
otherwise 17-40 f/4 will be good for $ and is comparable with 16-35

white venom wrote in post #15328751
I am debating the same 2 lens

you're on a crop...you should really consider the 17-55IS if you're considering these 2...

white venom wrote in post #15328751
I am debating the same 2 lens

DreDaze wrote in post #15329951
you're on a crop...you should really consider the 17-55IS if you're considering these 2...

I would agree. For a crop camera the 17-55 smokes both the 16-35 and 17-40.

If you want a UWA-zoom for landscapes, skip the 17-40 and 16-35. They are both lousy when it comes to edge to edge sharpness.


Canon still doesn't have a good quality UWA-zoom that is sharp across the frame, but I think (and hope) that they will release a new lens very soon - hopefully a razor sharp 14-24L.