EF 16-35 f4 L vs EF 17-40 f4 L

I have owned my 6dmk2 with 16-35mm f4 L for some time now, but I was looking for a lighter setup that would yield similar results on weekend trips to Disney theme parks, daily use, etc.

While I like my 16-35mm f4.0L, it is not a compact lens by any means. I have been looking for a smaller alternative for some time now, resorted to using primes. Problem was that I needed at least 3 primes to cover the focal range of my 16-35mm.

I read and participated in several posts regarding getting a 17-40 f4.0L, but 90% of folks said it would be a step backwards for me.

A couple of weeks ago the 17-40 f4.0L went on sale. It was now less expensive than a Sigma or other 3rd party lenses with somewhat similar focal lengths. So, I decided to buy it last week.

I tried it out today with my kids at Animal Kingdom in Orlando, Florida. Here are my thoughts regarding the 17-40mm f4.0L:

- It is much lighter and smaller than the 16-35mm f4.0L. It may not seem that way on paper, but in real life it is. I was able to wear my 6dmk2 with 17-40 f4.0L around my neck all day without a problem. A few ounces do make a difference at the end of a long day spent walking around under the sun.

- The image quality is not that different from the 16-35mm f4.0L. Yes, the edges are sharper with the 16-35mm f4.0L, but the 17-40 f4.0L stopped down to f5.6 is pretty sharp.

- The 17-40 f4.0L is a bit more prone to flaring than the 16-35mm f4.0L. The large hood it came with would have defeated the whole purpose of taking a compact setup, so I left it home. Not sure if it would have helped.

- Despite being light in terms of weight, it has a solid feel to it. It doesn't feel like the kit lenses you get with APS-C cameras.

- Due to its lower price, I feel more comfortable taking it anywhere and using it as a daily beater/weekend theme park lens than I did with my 16-35mm f4.0L.

Overall, I think it was worth the purchase for me. If I were to shoot paid gigs, I would take my 16-35mm f4.0L. Also, if I were going on a rare, once in a lifetime trip, I would take the 16-35mm f4.0L. However, for anything else my new 17-40mm f4.0L is more than perfect. The idea is to learn its limitations and work with them or around them.

I have a feeling that this lens is going to live attached to my 6dmk2!

I really liked the 17-40mm. It was my first "L" lens, and it served me well for very long. I did "upgrade" to the 16-35mm, but I have to admit I miss the 40mm more than I appreciate the extra 1mm width @ 16mm. The 17-40mm range was more versatile.

I never had any issue with the IQ from the 17-40mm, but I do see that the 16-35mm is sharper.

16-35 F/4 all day long

why ??

the 16-35F/4 has IS. You can hand hold this lens at 1/15 all day long and get very sharp usable images....cant do that with a 17-40

I dont use a 16-35 very often. My 24-70 does the trick for me. BUT, If i ever decided to get another wide angle, it would definitely be a 16-34 F/4 IS. Its one of the sharpest and best on the market for canon users

I still have my 17-40 f/4 L even though I haven’t used it in five years.
Why, I have the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Yes it’s bigger, but outperforms in every way and like Umphotography said, it has IS. So why do I hold on to the 17-40? Trade in/ resale is not that great. Also if I needed service on the 16-35, I have a great back up a few rooms over.
If your looking to add the 17-40 for walk around, sure grab it. If your looking to swap your 16-35 for the 17-40, I know I would certainly would not do that.

Nick5 wrote in post #19307074
I still have my 17-40 f/4 L even though I haven’t used it in five years.
Why, I have the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Yes it’s bigger, but outperforms in every way and like Umphotography said, it has IS. So why do I hold on to the 17-40? Trade in/ resale is not that great. Also if I needed service on the 16-35, I have a great back up a few rooms over.
If your looking to add the 17-40 for walk around, sure grab it. If your looking to swap your 16-35 for the 17-40, I know I would certainly would not do that.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

1. I have a Canon 16-35mm f4.0L IS.

2. I don't plan on getting rid of or trading my 16-35mm f4.0L or selling it or trading it. I'm keeping both my 16-35mm f4.0L AND my 17-40mm f4.0L.

3. Yes, my 16-35mm is sharper, better than my 17-40mm f4.0L, but I plan on using my new 17-40mm as my daily beater/weekend theme park lens. For "serious" work, I'll use mt 16-35mm f4.0L.

4. For my intended purpose, the 17-40mm f4.0L is more than adequate.

umphotography wrote in post #19307067
16-35 F/4 all day long

why ??

the 16-35F/4 has IS. You can hand hold this lens at 1/15 all day long and get very sharp usable images....cant do that with a 17-40

I dont use a 16-35 very often. My 24-70 does the trick for me. BUT, If i ever decided to get another wide angle, it would definitely be a 16-34 F/4 IS. Its one of the sharpest and best on the market for canon users

No arguments about that at all. My 16-35mm f4.0L is a better, sharper lens than my 17-40mm f4.0L.

I'm not "replacing" my 16-35mm f4.0L with my new 17-40mm f4.0L; only "substituting" it during weekends at theme parks and every day snapshots. I will use my 16-35mm f4.0L when I need sharper results or IS , etc.

Love the 17-40L!
My landscapes are generally with the tripod, cable release, mirror lock-up.
Sure more work than just using the 16-35, but it's double the price.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com ….0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Here is an sample-no complaints from me...

Photo from jimmy_racoon's gallery.

I am a little late to this thread, but if weight on your neck was your biggest issue with the EF 16-35mm f/4, buying a better camera strap that goes over your shoulder (like a Black Rapid Strap) probably would have solved your issue for less money than adding a redundant 17-40L to your kit. I have owned both the lenses discussed here, and I really did not notice much difference in size/weight between the two.

I owned the 17-40 years ago. I liked it but didn't love it. I was into wide, narrow-aperture landscapes at the time and the lack of edge sharpness always bothered me. I eventually sold it and bought a 24mm prime, but that was short lived as it just wasn't wide enough. Fast forward a few years and I reluctantly purchased the 16-35 f4L because I had a 25% discount. Ironically, it's now one of the lenses that I would not consider selling. The image quality is more than I want or need, and the IS, especially paired with IBIS, is incredible for low-light or creative slow-shutter shots. Truthfully, I never thought much about the weight differences. I suppose it was negligible enough for me to not take notice.

by comparison the 17-40L is garbage.

mannetti21 wrote in post #19317965
I owned the 17-40 years ago. I liked it but didn't love it. I was into wide, narrow-aperture landscapes at the time and the lack of edge sharpness always bothered me. I eventually sold it and bought a 24mm prime, but that was short lived as it just wasn't wide enough. Fast forward a few years and I reluctantly purchased the 16-35 f4L because I had a 25% discount. Ironically, it's now one of the lenses that I would not consider selling. The image quality is more than I want or need, and the IS, especially paired with IBIS, is incredible for low-light or creative slow-shutter shots. Truthfully, I never thought much about the weight differences. I suppose it was negligible enough for me to not take notice.

No question, the 16-35mm f4.0L is a better lens in terms of optics than the 17-40 f4.0L, however now that I own both of these lenses each will have its own use.

I just got back from a road trip, and all I took with me was my 6dmk2 with 17-40mm f4.0L. I am happy with the results. Had this been a "trip of a lifetime ", I would have taken my 16-35mm f4.0L instead. Again, this smaller, lighter 17-40mm f4.0L has its advantages.

5 oz difference between the lenses. i am primarily a landscape photographer and if i wanted to be 5 ozs lighter i'd probably take a bigger dump that morning rather than opt for a clearly inferior lens. but if you are happy that's all that matters

ed rader wrote in post #19319887
5 oz difference between the lenses. i am primarily a landscape photographer and if i wanted to be 5 ozs lighter i'd probably take a bigger dump that morning rather than opt for a clearly inferior lens. but if you are happy that's all that matters

It's not just the weight, it the overall "footprint " of having a smaller lens. Also, if it gets lost, stolen or damaged it won't hurt as bad financially as the 17-40mm f4.0L cost me almost half of what my 16-35mm f4.0L cost.

But, judging by your "colorful" response, I highly doubt you would understand. No big deal. It works for me. I'm happy.

ed rader wrote in post #19319887
5 oz difference between the lenses. i am primarily a landscape photographer and if i wanted to be 5 ozs lighter i'd probably take a bigger dump that morning rather than opt for a clearly inferior lens. but if you are happy that's all that matters

BadaDUMP!

I just got back into photography two years ago after being away for 30 years. Affordable ultra-wides were new when I got back. Widest I'd ever used was a 24mm and I coveted a 20mm.

I jumped on a 17-40 early on. I think I used it 3 times then gave up and sold it. I just bought a 16-35 recently, largely on the following that lens has here. There are guys on PTON who'll fight you if you talk bad about their lens. Jury is still out for me and it has nothing to do with IQ. If I can't make a good shot with either of those lenses, it's my fault.

The problem is, those lenses are really hard to use. If you're not paying attention they make lines look funny. The perspective gets cartoonish fast. DOF? Bokeh? Infinity starts at 4 feet. With that angle of view, there's poop going on in every little corner of the frame. And we've discussed how sharp it all is. Wrangling acres of sharp poop through distortion is beyond my current skill set.

There are a million ways I can screw up an image with a 16mm lens. That number probably drops to 300,000 at 24mm. Much more manageable. And 24mm is actually very wide. I've got a 24-105 that I love and use all the time. I'm worried that I'll never get motivated to learn how to use a 16mm lens properly. Even one with spectacular IQ.