17-40 4L vs. 16-35 2.8L

I want to know if getting the 16-35 would be worth the extra money.

My primary uses include:
1) Landscape (need something wider than my 24-105)
2) Cityscapes and around the city (look at my most recent flickr photos..need something wider)
3) General purpose when 24 isn't wide enough

I understand the whole "you get what you pay for" argument. I also understand that the 2.8 would perform better for the low light situations but I don't ever find myself shooting wide open much as I primarily don't photograph people or subjects that are close up. I also shoot on a tripod 90% of the time.

Are there any other significant differences between the two?
Please list benefits for both of the lenses over the other. I'm trying to make a decision and would love to save the money by getting the 17-40 but only if there aren't too many significant differences.

well....

seeing your city shots are at night, maybe the F2,8 would be useful...

But, the 17-40 is one very light lens, and one very cheap lens. I have the 17-40 and truth be told, it is a great lens, but if you are like me and you always want better, you might be wasting your cash not buying the 16-35.

There are other options. Tamron do a good wideangle, as good as but cheaper than the 16-35. And Sigma are apparently going to announce a new wideangle soon too.

MattD wrote in post #16605168
well....

seeing your city shots are at night, maybe the F2,8 would be useful...

But, the 17-40 is one very light lens, and one very cheap lens. I have the 17-40 and truth be told, it is a great lens, but if you are like me and you always want better, you might be wasting your cash not buying the 16-35.

There are other options. Tamron do a good wideangle, as good as but cheaper than the 16-35. And Sigma are apparently going to announce a new wideangle soon too.

You would think at night I would need the 2.8 right? But I shoot on a tripod with long shutter not being a problem or issue. Should I save and get the 17-40?

After using a 17-40L for quite a long time, I just recently switched to the 16-35 II...

My thoughts:

If you don't need f/2.8, get the f/4. While the 16-28 is very sharp wide open in the center, if you stop both these lenses down they look nearly identical. So if you are on a tripod most of the time, stopping down, get the 17-40 and save some cash.

I honestly may like the 17-40 a little more in some aspects... But I need the f/2.8 for some of my shoots, so in that regard it is worth it. Both excellent lenses.

Invertalon wrote in post #16605184
After using a 17-40L for quite a long time, I just recently switched to the 16-35 II...

My thoughts:

If you don't need f/2.8, get the f/4. While the 16-28 is very sharp wide open in the center, if you stop both these lenses down they look nearly identical. So if you are on a tripod most of the time, stopping down, get the 17-40 and save some cash.

I honestly may like the 17-40 a little more in some aspects... But I need the f/2.8 for some of my shoots, so in that regard it is worth it. Both excellent lenses.

I think that this alone sold me on the 17-40. Thank you!

MattD wrote in post #16605168
seeing your city shots are at night, maybe the F2,8 would be useful...

However, if the OP has his camera mounted on a tripod (which looking at his Flickr page is probably the case), the extra stop really is irrelevant, unless he's shooting HH.

To the OP. I have owned both lenses. For your stated uses, I think the 17-40mm would be the best option for you. Unless you're looking to explore the world of astrophotography, you really won't need the f/2.8 aperture.

nburwell wrote in post #16605271
However, if the OP has his camera mounted on a tripod (which looking at his Flickr page is probably the case), the extra stop really is irrelevant, unless he's shooting HH.

To the OP. I have owned both lenses. For your stated uses, I think the 17-40mm would be the best option for you. Unless you're looking to explore the world of astrophotography, you really won't need the f/2.8 aperture.

And if I'm wanting to do astrophotography wouldn't my 50 1.8 do the trick there?

If you have to ask, then the 17-40 will be more than fine for you, seriously.

JM Photos wrote in post #16605077
...

... but I don't ever find myself shooting wide open much as I primarily don't photograph people or subjects that are close up. I also shoot on a tripod 90% of the time.

For that, I think 17-40 is probably better for you. With 16-35, you are really paying for f/2.8. Other properties have small differences.

JM Photos wrote in post #16605719
And if I'm wanting to do astrophotography wouldn't my 50 1.8 do the trick there?

If 50mm gives you the FOV you want for astrophotography, sure. But the other thing to consider is exposure times - a wide lens will allow you to do a longer exposure before you see tails on your stars than a longer lens.

Astro is the one caveat that would cause me to advise the 16-35 in your case, else the 17-40 would be more than sufficient.

Thanks. These replies saved me a lot of cash.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #16617042
Thanks. These replies saved me a lot of cash.

We're you going to get the 16-35?

Dxomark has finally tested the 17-40mm, now we have some detailed scientific measurements to look at.
And Dxomark is suggesting than the 17-40mm is optically better. It comes in at 14P-Mpix compared to 13P-Mpix for the 16-35mm II.

This is a measure of sharpness across the frame, as and you can see the 17-40mm is sharper at the mid and edge of frame. When stopped down to f8, which is a typical aperture for night shots on a tripod.

Now dxomark is is measure to the edge of the frame, and not the corner of the frame. There are other reviews which have shown the 16-35mm II to have a big advantage in the extreme corners.
Still, for the most of the frame the 17-40mm is sharper, and you can see that in these Digital Picture examples. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4


So it would appear the 17-40mm is a better buy even in money is not a concern, unless you absolutely require 2.8 for low light shooting.

JM Photos wrote in post #16617282
We're you going to get the 16-35?

I was seriously thinking about it... but the extra down in paying off my Visa sounds a bit nicer. Don't get me wrong... I'd love the 2.8 but just like my 70-200 I think I'm going to go with the less expensive model. With the 70-200 f4 IS I've not had any complaints. From all I've read about the 17-40 I don't think I will either.

Mornnb wrote in post #16617319
Dxomark has finally tested the 17-40mm, now we have some detailed scientific measurements to look at.
And Dxomark is suggesting than the 17-40mm is optically better. It comes in at 14P-Mpix compared to 13P-Mpix for the 16-35mm II.

This is a measure of sharpness across the frame, as and you can see the 17-40mm is sharper at the mid and edge of frame. When stopped down to f8, which is a typical aperture for night shots on a tripod.

Now dxomark is is measure to the edge of the frame, and not the corner of the frame. There are other reviews which have shown the 16-35mm II to have a big advantage in the extreme corners.
Still, for the most of the frame the 17-40mm is sharper, and you can see that in these Digital Picture examples. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4


So it would appear the 17-40mm is a better buy even in money is not a concern, unless you absolutely require 2.8 for low light shooting.

When you said DXO I say BS, this post just lost all of its' credibility.

Roger