Replacing my 17-40

My well loved but not often used 17-40L committed suicide by leaping off a tripod. I'm curious about options for replacing it. I don't do a lot of ultra wide photos and I was pleased with the 17-40 and honestly I wouldn't mind having another at the right price. I need a full frame capable lens, and the 16-35f4 i intriguing. I've always had the 16-35 2.8L on my upgrade list but I'm not sure I want to spend that much. I'm open to 3rd party options although I tend to favor canon.

I went with the 16-35f4. It is considerably less expensive than it's 2.8 cousin and for me I'll use it outdoors in good light wanting more depth of field so 2.8 isn't required. I have never used the 17-40 but technical reviews place it below the 16-35 in image quality. Having used the 17-40 you might know better on that. I have no experience with other brands because I go with Canon glass 100% but I'm sure opinions will come.

I replaced my 17-40 with the 16-35 f4. It's an excellent lens. Sharp corner to corner, unlike the 17-40. Go for it.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #19240814
I replaced my 17-40 with the 16-35 f4. It's an excellent lens. Sharp corner to corner, unlike the 17-40. Go for it.

Same boat as well. Upgraded my 17-40 in the summer of ‘15 and still “ Wowed” what this lens can capture. For someone who shoots bracketed Hand Held Images in dark Cathedrals in Europe and here in the U.S., IS is a must.
It’s so good, you will use it more than you might think.

Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di OSD is as good as the 16-35mm f4, but smaller, lighter, cheaper and has a faster aperture through most of the range. Definitely check that one out.

gonna check this suggestion out-thx!

I did the same thing - replaced the 17-40 with the 16-35 F4 IS - its a great upgrade and the image stabilization is very useful when you are hand holding the camera.

Funny how I stumbled upon this thread! Turns out that I currently have the Canon 16-35mm f4.0L on my 6dmk2. I have been looking at getting the smaller 17-40mm f4.0L because it is more compact than my 16-35!

I need an all around lens to take with me to theme parks. The 16-35 is not as compact as the 17-40.

What’s your camera body? My gut feeling, owning both (though I haven’t used the 17-40 since I got the 16-35) is that the difference in size/weight isn’t that significant… at least of the overall package mounted to a 5D3. On a smaller body, it might be more noticeable…

bseitz234 wrote in post #19270507
What’s your camera body? My gut feeling, owning both (though I haven’t used the 17-40 since I got the 16-35) is that the difference in size/weight isn’t that significant… at least of the overall package mounted to a 5D3. On a smaller body, it might be more noticeable…

I have a 6dmk2.

karrera wrote in post #19261828
I did the same thing - replaced the 17-40 with the 16-35 F4 IS - its a great upgrade and the image stabilization is very useful when you are hand holding the camera.

I did the same a few weeks ago. I sold my 17-40 to MPB and bought a used 16-35 f4 IS. I used the lens a lot on a recent trip. Took some fun photos in Vicksburg and St. Louis at the arch. Great change and the price difference was not too great.

I bought the 17-40 L right after I bought the R5 this Spring thinking it was an upgrade to my Sigma. I found it was not, the lens was ok, not terrible, just not the upgrade I was looking for over the Sigma. The 16-35 f4IS is great.

snegron wrote in post #19270532
I have a 6dmk2.

The 17-40 is a little smaller, but not that big of difference. I don't mind the slight increase in size. I really did not notice any difference in weight. Might have been difference, but did not appear that great.

snegron wrote in post #19270442
Funny how I stumbled upon this thread! Turns out that I currently have the Canon 16-35mm f4.0L on my 6dmk2. I have been looking at getting the smaller 17-40mm f4.0L because it is more compact than my 16-35!

I need an all around lens to take with me to theme parks. The 16-35 is not as compact as the 17-40.

Honstly, don't bother. The IQ of the 16-35 F/4L IS is a lot better than than that of the 17-40L, especially at the short end of the zoom range. Personally, I hated the 17-40L shooting at 17 to 20 mm with anything in focus at the edges and corners. It was fine for APS-C, but IMO absolutely not for FF digital.
It is why I replaced my 17-40L with the Nikkkor 14-24 F/2.8 first, adapted, and the TS-E 17L later, after it became available. The latter was even better than the Nikkor, and less awkward to handle, which made it an easy choice for me.

I also bought the Sigma 12-24 FF version back when the Nikkor came out, but after a day or two of testing I basically raced back to the store and got the Nikkor instead. Let me say I was not a fan of the Sigma 12-24, especially at the short end (if anything, worse than the 17-40L).

Anyway, the EF 16-35 F/4L IS is as small as it gets, to be very honest, at very good IQ, so personally I would stick with that.

If you really want more compact, you'd have to opt for one of the 3rd party primes, I 'd have to say, but even those at UWA are not really all that small. Quality-wise I think the only one really up to scratch is the Samyang/Rokinon 14 F/2.8 AF, but that is only 130g lighter than is the Canon EF 16-35 F/4.
Anything else is really bigger and heavier, or just not up to the same standard.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

I haven't used the 16-35 F/4 but I shot my 17-40L that had recently been calibrated by Canon side-by-side with a friend's 16-35 2.8L (@ everything from f/4 and above) and the 16-35 was consistently sharper and the images looked visably better. The 17-40 wasn't bad, but the 16-35 was better. I can imagine the newer models are only more improved.

On the more budget side (in addition to the Tamron mentioned above) there is the Sigma 15-30 (with it's a huge bulbus front-element) and the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 .

The 17-40 just went on sale, so I ordered one. It's less expensive now new than some of the used ones I have seen.