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

http://www.youtube.com …er_embedded&v=D​H0LXGhRb4I


You guys might find this video interesting.

Good video. I think Canon paid him off. LOL

For the money, I think the 17-40 will work fine for me. Another thing I like about the lens is that it is more compact (shorter in length).

What about the Tokina 16-28 2.8?? Is this a good option or not?

Why would not look at the Tokina 16-28 2.8?

Personally I stick with the same mfg as the body. It's made for them, they work better. Call me stupid, whatever.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #16618845
Personally I stick with the same mfg as the body. It's made for them, they work better. Call me stupid, whatever.

Meh, I would honestly try to stop thinking like that. It will get you nowhere because statistically there are lenses out there (non-Canon) that are just as good, if not better, than some of the Canon brand lenses. This is the exact reason that I opted for the Rokinon 14mm for my UWA lens. You also can not beat the price.

When I was like 17 years old, I only wanted Canon lenses that were L. It was all about the look and prestige. Now that I have become more experienced over several years and talked to many people, i could care less about how my camera looks in public. I want the lenses that will best serve me (Canon or 3rd party).

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.

this is probably the most unbiased and helpful post I've seen on these boards in at least a month.

shutterbug guy wrote in post #16617424
When you said DXO I say BS, this post just lost all of its' credibility.

Roger

You don't know how to read it. Look at what makes up the scores. The scores are quite subjective and give a lot of weight to things such as 'transmission'.

Regarding the Tokina 16-28 2.8, I rented it to try as a possible improvement to the 17-40, and it is, except it flares badly, especially for night photography, so I passed. The 17-40 is decent in this regard.

Ted.
Since Christmas, I have been looking to add an Ultra Wide Angle Zoom lens for my 5D Mark III. My trusty Canon EFS 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 served me well (and will continue) on my 7D bodies.
For me, the choices for a full frame UWA lens came down to the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L and the Canon 17-40 f/4 L.
Last Friday I decided it was time to go for it and invest in one of the above. My local Mom and Pop Camera Shop had both in stock. We were able to compare both lenses on my 5D III. Looking at images, albeit on the LCD, it was really hard to see "significant" differences between the two, which is good. Sure the 16-35 is slightly wider, but the 17-40 is longer.
The 16-35 is one stop faster. However my 10-22's medium aperture is f/4.
16-35 is double the price of the 17-40.
Is the image quality double that of the 17-40? More like equall, than double.
Sure there are differences, but how much and at what cost?

Believe me, I was and still love 2.8. However since I did not have the 2.8 before, I am basically adding what I had previously in the 10-22. The difference in price is substantial. So much so I could utilize that difference as a large chunk to possibly upgrade (or add to) my 24-105 f/4 L IS......24-70 f2.8 or the 24-70 f/4 L with Image Stabilization......Dec​ision for another day.
Anyway, after looking at all the pros and cons of both the 16-35 and the 17-40, we decided to go home with the 17-40 f/4 L.
Although it is a tough choice....there is no wrong choice.

Nick5 wrote in post #16623766
Although it is a tough choice....there is no wrong choice.

Well said. Enjoy!