16-35L or 17-40L?

I'm looking to pick up a UWA. I owned the 17-40 at one time and i liked it. I'm wondering if the 16-35/4L is worth the premium over the 17-40.

My 17-40 was awful in the corners if wide. My daughter gave me 16-35 2.8 (she switched to 24-105 F4 IS L), it is better lens. And f2.8 is handy for me.

mike_311 wrote in post #18433275
I'm looking to pick up a UWA. I owned the 17-40 at one time and i liked it. I'm wondering if the 16-35/4L is worth the premium over the 17-40.

If you're always shooting at F8~F11 on a tripod and want to save money, get the 17-40L.

If you want the best everything, IS, and sharp wide open corner to corner, get the 16-35 F4L IS.

Very best,

The 16-35f4IS image quality is more like a prime lens "look". Micro contrast is like all of the newer generation Canon lenses.

The 17-40L has less micro contrast and is sharp like the typical aging Canon lenses like the 24-70 f/2.8mk1.

IMO the 16-35f/4IS is one of the cheapest UWA lenses that produces incredible IQ. It surpasses the 16-35 f/2.8mk2 in IQ sharpness. If your like sunflare with spikes the Canon 16-35 f/4is and f/2.8mk2 is more star like with less points vs the Tamron 15-30 UWA lens.

I will say the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8VC has excellent bokeh at f/2.8 for a UWA lens when subjects are close. Depending on style and budget Tamron is something definitely to look into instead of the 16-35 f/2.8mk3. Tammy is heavy though.......but the image quality is easily on par with the 16-35 f/4is.

mike_311 wrote in post #18433275
I'm looking to pick up a UWA. I owned the 17-40 at one time and i liked it. I'm wondering if the 16-35/4L is worth the premium over the 17-40.

If the 16-35 f/4 L IS was on the market in January of 2014, I would not have bought the 17-40 f/4 L.
In the summer of 2015, I decided to buy the 16-35 f/4 L IS for a trip to Rome where tripods are prohibited and shooting Hand Held. Being able to capture razor sharp images with better corner to corner results truly paid off.
I still have my 17-40 a resale price is not much. For me having a back up available is ease of mind.

At one time I purchased the 17-40 and 16-35 f/4 at the same time. The 16-35 is top notch, the 17-40 was sold a week later.

Just YES!

I loved my 17-40 for a long time. I learned to live with it's distortion and soft edges simply because it's colour was so good. The 16-35 F4 L IS is exactly the same but without the distortion and very sharp too!

Give one a try - you won't need to download images the rear screen will tell you all you need to know! It is simply a great lens at a sensible price.

Optically, reviews and users say the 16-35F4 IS is better and sharper in the corners. I have the 17-40 and don't plan to upgrade.
There are things that I like about the 17-40:
It is lighter and smaller.
It goes to 40 on the long end.
It doesn't change length as you zoom.
It can double as a normal lens on a crop body.

The 17-40 does have some funky distortion in the far corners at 17, so you may want to keep people out of those areas in photos. However, it is sharp at F8-F11 and that works outside. I have used it inside on a full frame camera in very low light. ISO performance on a 6D will let you get useful pictures in low light.
If I were buying today, I would probably spend a few bucks more for the 16-35F4 IS, but mainly for the IS while travelling.
If you are planning to do nearly all of your shooting outside in decent light, you won't gain anything from the IS. If I were planning a trip to Rome, I would rather take a lens with IS. If this is going to be a frequently used lens, that should factor into your thinking. I have other lenses that get used more often, so I am content with keeping my 17-40.

I have no intention of upgrading my 17-40. I generally use it at f/8-11, and try to avoid 17mm.

artyH wrote in post #18437369
Optically, reviews and users say the 16-35F4 IS is better and sharper in the corners. I have the 17-40 and don't plan to upgrade.
There are things that I like about the 17-40:
It is lighter and smaller.
It goes to 40 on the long end.
It doesn't change length as you zoom.
It can double as a normal lens on a crop body.

The last two qualities are also shared with the 16-35/4.
If money is not a problem, I would definitely upgrade.
The 17-40 is lighter and smaller, but the IS replaces a tripod, which is much heavier and bigger
As a vacation lens, the IS makes a big difference, especialy when shooting indoor and at night.

Bassat wrote in post #18437427
I have no intention of upgrading my 17-40. I generally use it at f/8-11, and try to avoid 17mm.

This is why I'd rather buy a couple smaller used primes than the 17-40, if the 16-35/4 is too expensive.

I had the 17-40L before going to the 16-35L. For me, the cost was well worth the money. The 16-35L is much sharper across the whole image.

James P wrote in post #18442338
I had the 17-40L before going to the 16-35L. For me, the cost was well worth the money. The 16-35L is much sharper across the whole image.

I almost felt the 16-35 f/2.8mk2 was a lateral change from my 17-40L. I loved my 17-40 since f/4 is easy to get sharp images Imo without stopping down.

What I'm finding is that the 5dmk4 with my 16-35 f/2.8mk2 seems like I've bumped up some sharpness and micro contrast. Not sure why but I'm finding my 5dmk4 images better than my micro adjusted finely tuned 5dmk3.

Even at f8-f11 the 16-35 is quite a bit sharper in the corners, certainly at the wide end. The 17-40 is not so bad at 30-40mm if I remember correctly, so I'm not sure how they compare there.

Of course pros were selling large prints made with the 17-40 back in the day. If you need something cheap, are going to shoot it at f11 and can get one for less than 1/2 a 16-35, it is worth considering for sure.

What Mal said.

I owned both. I would have no problem getting the 16-35 f4 IS again. A stellar lens.