Your thoughts on the 17-40 4L?

snegron wrote in post #17963199
Thanks!

A few minutes ago I went to see both lenses at my local big box retailer. Comparing borh lenses (the 17-40 and the 16-35) my impression was that the 17-40 felt better built; more solid like what I expect an L lens to feel like.

However, after much internal deliberation I ended up getting the 16-35 for one reason only: IS.

Had the 16-35 not had IS, I would have purchased the 17-40 hands down. Even the sales person was telling me how much more she liked the 17-40.

Hopefully I didn't make a $1000 mistake...

ohhh noooo you made a big big ...............

Fantastic decision!!!

The 17-40L is a great lens for one of Canon's UWA lenses. The 16-35L f/4IS has more micro contrast/sharpness and the colours are incredible just like the 17-40L.

I typically shoot events with my 16-35f/2.8 mk2 but I did something risky..... I used it in an extemely low light restaurant to document an epic 40th Bday celebration. I used bounced flash but I also used the 16-35f/4is lens with no flash in certain situations. The "IS" was incredible and I achieved photos I wanted!! Lights out with candle light only worked out fantastic.

I was very pleased with the 17-40L i owned. I purchased the 16-35L f/2.8 mk2 because I started to shoot alot of events and wanted faster glass. I purchased the f/4IS version simply because I liked the IQ. I like the image quality of the f/4IS version over the f/2.8. However when I need more shutter speed and need 1 stop faster glass I'm still very pleased with the IQ I get with the f/2.8 mk2 version.

AlanU wrote in post #17963224
ohhh noooo you made a big big ...............

Fantastic decision!!!

The 17-40L is a great lens for one of Canon's UWA lenses. The 16-35L f/4IS has more micro contrast/sharpness and the colours are incredible just like the 17-40L.

I typically shoot events with my 16-35f/2.8 mk2 but I did something risky..... I used it in an extemely low light restaurant to document an epic 40th Bday celebration. I used bounced flash but I also used the 16-35f/4is lens with no flash in certain situations. The "IS" was incredible and I achieved photos I wanted!! Lights out with candle light only worked out fantastic.

I was very pleased with the 17-40L i owned. I purchased the 16-35L f/2.8 mk2 because I started to shoot alot of events and wanted faster glass. I purchased the f/4IS version simply because I liked the IQ. I like the image quality of the f/4IS version over the f/2.8. However when I need more shutter speed and need 1 stop faster glass I'm still very pleased with the IQ I get with the f/2.8 mk2 version.

Can we see those pictures to shut up those who say they IS is useless in wide-angle lenses. Also, so you are selling a 17-40L?

I've sold my pristine 17-40L to a friend a long time ago.

I never considered the 16-35L f/4IS because I owned the 16-35 f/2.8mk2. I had the suspicion that Canon would give this lens the "signature" new generation Canon lens "image quality look". The micro contrast on this lens is just like the 24-70L f/2.8 mk2 and 70-200L f/2.8IS mk2. I absolutlely love the output from the UWA f/4IS lens.

The 16-35 f/2.8 mk2 has very similar looking files of the 17-40L but it's simply one stop faster.This is sorta like saying the image quality difference from a 24Lmk1 vs 24Lmk2. New mk2 Canon glass has more micro contrast but at the cost of looking more "digital" vs film look we use to get with old 5d classic full frame.

I find the UWA f/4IS has that similar killer image stabilization that we got when the 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 came out. So truly the IS is helpful but in most cases I simply turn it off.

snegron wrote in post #17963199
Thanks!

A few minutes ago I went to see both lenses at my local big box retailer. Comparing borh lenses (the 17-40 and the 16-35) my impression was that the 17-40 felt better built; more solid like what I expect an L lens to feel like.

However, after much internal deliberation I ended up getting the 16-35 for one reason only: IS.

Had the 16-35 not had IS, I would have purchased the 17-40 hands down. Even the sales person was telling me how much more she liked the 17-40.

Hopefully I didn't make a $1000 mistake...

I doubt you did, particularly if you shoot wide a lot. I don't personally, and I'm fine with cranking up iso for a better shutter than *having* to have IS for a shot, BUT I'm not a landscape photographer primarily.. Congrats and hope to see some examples soon!