17-40L Vs 16-35L II

I just wanted to see what the group thinks of these two Lenses?
I was looking at Digital-Picture and comparing the tests at various aperatures.
Stopped down and at 35mm it appears the 17=40 has an edge.

All in all would you say that they are close?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=3

Thanks

I'm selling a 17-40L to make way for a 16-35L II, I shoot in old ruins, in dark area's plus a few landscapes and for me personally the f2.8 will be better in the low light of ruins especially early morning, a friend shoots the 16-35 and her images just look a bit sharper, I will miss the 17-40 but im excited about getting a 16-35.

I had both and I sold the 16-35mm as I didn't need the f/2.8. I think the 17-40mm when stopped down has a slight edge anyway, especially around f/8. Even in the corners it was better then the 16-35mm.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

I had 16-35 II and found double price not worth for 1 stop faster. Sold it for 17-40, missed thevstop and ended up with the allmighty Tokina 16-28 2.8, best of the 3!

CanonYouCan wrote in post #15464535
I had 16-35 II and found double price not worth for 1 stop faster. Sold it for 17-40, missed thevstop and ended up with the allmighty Tokina 16-28 2.8, best of the 3!

I'd love to get the tokina if it only accepted filters... I don't get why Canon managed to make a lens that is just as wide, has the same aperture, and even has more zoom, which takes filters whilst the Tokina has a silly front element.

I love my 16-35 II. I do a lot of indoor work and when my 24-105 isn't wide enough, the 16-35 fills the bill with limited wide angle distortion...especiall​y on my 60D crop. On my 5D3, it's fantastic!

My only complaint is the 82mm filter size. I only have a 77mm CPL, so if I encounter a need for a CPL with that lens, I'm screwed. However, I'm considering a step-down ring and use the 77 CPL, and simply crop out the vignetting. If I ever start using ND filters, I may just stay with 77mm as well.

Need a UWA for a FF camera, get the 17-40. Need a UWA and f/2.8, get the 16-36. Other than at f/2.8, they are really close in performance.

gjl711 wrote in post #15465052
Need a UWA for a FF camera, get the 17-40. Need a UWA and f/2.8, get the 16-36. Other than at f/2.8, they are really close in performance.

Agreed.

It comes down to needing 2.8 or not. I bought a 16-35L II to replace my 17-40L and realized that the 16-35 isn't any sharper at all. Sometimes I felt like my 17-40L was almost sharper at f8 - f16. Pixel peeping and all, they're about identical IQ wise.

Bottom line, you either need 2.8, or you don't.

I personally like the 77mm filter thread on my 17-40. It matches nicely with the 24-105. I have a lot of filters (CPL and various ND) and it's convenient not to have to carry step up rings or double up on filters. The 17-40 is a fantastic lens. The industry has led us to believe that the fastest lenses are the best lenses and it isn't always true.

all this will be a mute point after the 14-24 is released

I think the f/2.8 is the deciding factor too.

I don't need f/2.8 with wide angle so 17-40L for me. Plus same filter size as the 24-105L I sold so no need to spend another £200 on filters. I then bought a Sigma 70-200/2.8 which also takes the same thread

Am I the only one that also takes the awesome 14 point star burst into consideration when looking at the 16-35 II? If you are shooting any scene with bright points of light while stopped down, the difference is very noticeable.

Mark-B wrote in post #15467213
Am I the only one that also takes the awesome 14 point star burst into consideration when looking at the 16-35 II? If you are shooting any scene with bright points of light while stopped down, the difference is very noticeable.

Nope... most just look for corner sharpness, etc..

There are lots of qualities to the 16-35 that put it miles ahead of the 17-40. The 16-35 is the perfect night lens, it handles flare and bad light better than any other lens I've used.

You couldn't get me to go back to a 17-40, nope, nuh uh...

But, as the bottomline of this very common topic, if you don't need these features, and/or want to save money, then get the 17-40.

But, these two lenses are different in a lot of respects and many people forget that.

Good stuff folks.
As you can see, I have the 17-40 and as Todd stated, the 16=35 does have some attributes that give it an edge.
Even some of the Canon folks I was on a destination workshop said that why pay twice the price.
A new focal range such as the 14-24 would be interesting to say the least.
The problem is the prices they are charging for these lenses nowadays.
WOW!
Whats the new 14=24 going to go for?
Let me guess.

$1,549

LOL

I need to use this lens more often.
It's hard to break away from switching back and forth with the 24-105 to the 70-200 II
I'm glad I have the 17-40 though.
I also have to say that it using a 77mm filter made this lens a no brainer when the two above were also the same.

24mm seems to work well on my 5D3.

I'd buy a 14-24 for 1500 in a second! I'm expecting the price to be something more along the line of $2399.00

I think the lens will be targeted towards a niche market just like the TS-e line and priced accordingly.