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

drsilver wrote in post #19320264
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.

So much I like about this post, but I always enjoy it when someone reminds the newcomers that 24mm is WIDE!

oh i understand. IQ is low on your list.

the 17-40L was a great lens in its time. it was canon's best walkaround for the cropped sensor before efs lenses were produced. and the 17-40L was barely edged out by the 16-35L II which cost much more -- but neither of thoses lenses are sharp wide open (i have many years with both) and both have soft corners even stopped down. in fact back then canon's UW lenses were a running joke.

when canon rolled out the 16-35L f4 it was arguably the best UW zoom made by anyone, and you could buy it new for around 800 bucks up until a couple of years ago. and it is image stabilized, making razor sharp handheld landscapes shots possible even in low light.

ed rader wrote in post #19323491
oh i understand. IQ is low on your list.

the 17-40L was a great lens in its time. it was canon's best walkaround for the cropped sensor before efs lenses were produced. and the 17-40L was barely edged out by the 16-35L II which cost much more -- but neither of thoses lenses are sharp wide open (i have many years with both) and both have soft corners even stopped down. in fact back then canon's UW lenses were a running joke.

when canon rolled out the 16-35L f4 it was arguably the best UW zoom made by anyone, and you could buy it new for around 800 bucks up until a couple of years ago. and it is image stabilized, making razor sharp handheld landscapes shots possible even in low light.

It never ceases to amaze me how people get so worked up over "old vs new" photography equipment. The moment something new is introduced, all the "old equipment " suddenly becomes unusable. Disregard the millions of amazing images captured by thousands of photographers when all they had was that "old" equipment to use. Disregard all the Pulitzer award winning images captured with that "old" equipment. Disregard all those amazing images that graced National Geographic magazine, art exhibits worldwide, etc. The moment a camera manufacturer introduces a new lens or camera, all the "old" equipment automatically stops working , and all of the old award-winning images captured with that old equipment ceases to exist.

The reality is this (because you probably didn't bother to read through most of this post):

1. I OWN BOTH, yes BOTH (let me repeat that again, BOTH), the Canon 16-35mm f4.0L AND (yes, AND) the 17-40 f4.0L. I'll say this one more time just in cass you missed it; I own BOTH the 16-35mm f4.0L AND the 17-40mm f4.0L.

2. I DON'T plan on replacing either one. Strange as it may seem I can actually own both lenses and use them whenever I want. Want to know why? Because my 6dmk2 is an interchangeable lens camera! That means I can actually change lenses on it whenever I want!! Amazing concept born in the "old" days of film photography.

3. I know and fully understand the limitations of the 17-40mm f4.0L, yet I'll bet I can take amazing pictures with it!

4. It suits my needs based on size and price. If I drop my 6dmk2 while at a theme park, or rain destroys my equipment, or some careless kid wacks into it causing it to fall to the ground and break into a million unrepairable pieces, it wouldn't hurt me as much as if I had my fancier, more expensive 16-35mm f4.0L with me that day! Plus, I could still capture amazing images with it before any catastrophic nightmare scenario!

you probably have plastic covers on your furniture?

ed rader wrote in post #19324230
you probably have plastic covers on your furniture?

Nope, my furniture is all leather, but nice try.

I have a suggestion for you, since old items/equipment has zero value to you, why not send me all your lenses and cameras for free the instant you buy something new since they will no longer be usable in your opinion? That is providing you actually own any real equipment. I know that sometimes teens and newbies chime in on this forum, and that they don't really own any real photography equipment other than a cellphone, yet that doesn't stop them from preaching about new equipment they wish they had. Nothing wrong with that, except one should have actual experience with said equipment before one provides "authorative" opinions.

hah! i sell old gear to fund new gear. i use my best gear in the field -- that's what i buy it for. and for snapshots i use my iphone, which has a better range than the 17-40L, has 4k video and costs 3x more than three 17-40Ls.

I like the size, weight and performance of the 17-40L. It is a travel lens for me. Unfortunately, I do not travel much right now, so it sits in a bag.
I haven’t seen the need to “upgrade” to a more limited range at the long end. I have used the lens extensively on a 6D and on crop. I like the results I have gotten. I am not in to photography for a living, and generally like to use primes when I want to take close shots or for events where I need low light capability. For travel, the 17-40L just works for me.

ed rader wrote in post #19327861
... and costs 3x more than three 17-40Ls.

B+H show the ef 17-40 f4 at $499, so are you saying you paid $4491 for your phone dude, they're like ninehunerdbucks hey, you know I have these magic beans, right...

Let us mix this up even more. I do not have an ultrawide zoom lens, and I've been looking and comparing between the EF 16-35mm f4L, the EF 17-40mm f4L, and even the older EF 17-35mm f2.8 L lens. The widest lens I have is a 24-105mm f4L lens. I'm not sure what I would use these ultrawide zooms for, as I guess I would have to pick one and play with it.

The Canon EF 16-35mm f4L is the latest and greatest Canon lens for the DSLR market. Best optics at this time. Image stabilization. Price is around $600 - $750 on eBay at this time. Biggest and heaviest lens in of the three.

Canon EF 17-40mm f4L came out before the 16-35mm lens. Smaller and lighter than the 16-35mm lens. Lot of posters here say the optics are not as great as the 16-35mm f4L lens--not as sharp on the corners. No image stabilization. Price is over half cheaper than the EF 16-35mm f4L lens, now going around $200 - $400 on eBay.

Canon EF 17-35mm f2.8L lens. The oldest of the three lenses I'm looking at. This lens is about the same size as the EF 17-40mm lens, but has a 2.8 aperture. That is interesting. No image stabilization. Optics are the oldest of the three. Price is going for around $400-$500 on eBay. The Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L II is priced at $500-$700, and the version III is priced at over $1,000 on eBay.

I have not really decided yet on an ultrawide zoom, and I am in no hurry at the moment. I'm sure all three will take great images, when stopped down. I'm still thinking.

Eric Hopp wrote in post #19328150
Let us mix this up even more. I do not have an ultrawide zoom lens, and I've been looking and comparing between the EF 16-35mm f4L, the EF 17-40mm f4L, and even the older EF 17-35mm f2.8 L lens. The widest lens I have is a 24-105mm f4L lens. I'm not sure what I would use these ultrawide zooms for, as I guess I would have to pick one and play with it.

The Canon EF 16-35mm f4L is the latest and greatest Canon lens for the DSLR market. Best optics at this time. Image stabilization. Price is around $600 - $750 on eBay at this time. Biggest and heaviest lens in of the three.

Canon EF 17-40mm f4L came out before the 16-35mm lens. Smaller and lighter than the 16-35mm lens. Lot of posters here say the optics are not as great as the 16-35mm f4L lens--not as sharp on the corners. No image stabilization. Price is over half cheaper than the EF 16-35mm f4L lens, now going around $200 - $400 on eBay.

Canon EF 17-35mm f2.8L lens. The oldest of the three lenses I'm looking at. This lens is about the same size as the EF 17-40mm lens, but has a 2.8 aperture. That is interesting. No image stabilization. Optics are the oldest of the three. Price is going for around $400-$500 on eBay. The Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L II is priced at $500-$700, and the version III is priced at over $1,000 on eBay.

I have not really decided yet on an ultrawide zoom, and I am in no hurry at the moment. I'm sure all three will take great images, when stopped down. I'm still thinking.

I have only used two of the lenses you mentioned, the 16-35mm f4.0L and the 17-40mm f4.0L. I just got back from a road trip where I only took my 17-40mm f4.0L with me (I left my 16-35mm f4.0L at home). The images I got were extremely sharp! I used the ultrawide end (17mm) mostly for indoor cramped shots (Sun Records Studio tour and Graceland Mantion tour). The images were tack sharp! I have absolutely no regrets buying the 17-40mm f4.0L!

Will I use my 16-35mm f4.0L again? Yes, but I can get pretty much equal/indistinguishabl​e shots with my 17-40mm f4.0L. On a personal note, I prefer buying new lenses whenever possible, as one never knows how well the previous owner of a used lens took care of it. At $499 new, the 17-40mm f4.0L is a steal!

here jethro let me cipher that for you. 499 x 3 = 1497

i appreciate the 16mm far more than i miss the 5mm. in fact the rf 14-35 is the main reason i'm considering the move to mirrorless now

ed rader wrote in post #19328607
here jethro let me cipher that for you. 499 x 3 = 1497

Erm, no. You said "three times more than three ef 17-40s." That's 3x500=1500, multiplied by 3, so 4500. Prolly best ya stick to the day job As the title fairy so succinctly put it, you're not the last word...

I have a 17-40 but looking to replace it with the 16-35 f4, trouble is Canon now has a huge range of very/ultra wides so making a choice is not so easy.

Basically I fell into real estate photography last year armed only with my 17-40 and it has served me well, 90%+ of images are 17mm in the f6.3-f8.0 range and my clients seem very happy with the images.

I would like that little bit more width (ooh err) and I'm probably going mirrorless (R6) this year so that opens up even more wide options but the cost of RF lenses is prohibitive, also some of the ultra wide RF lenses do have weird distortion at the wide end and once corrected you are not as wide as you thought you were, the 16-35 f4 looks like the sweet spot of sharpness, correct distortion, tad wider, IS for slow handhelds and price.

The 16-35 f4 is around £500/£600 for a mint used example which is fine, at that price I'll keep the little 17-40 as back up, even at that cost I wonder what difference I'll see sharpness wise, the 17-40 has performed very well on my 5D4 when stopped down and is nowhere near as bad as many people make it out to be but then I'm not shooting F4..

murkeywaters wrote in post #19342132
I have a 17-40 but looking to replace it with the 16-35 f4, trouble is Canon now has a huge range of very/ultra wides so making a choice is not so easy.

Basically I fell into real estate photography last year armed only with my 17-40 and it has served me well, 90%+ of images are 17mm in the f6.3-f8.0 range and my clients seem very happy with the images.

I would like that little bit more width (ooh err) and I'm probably going mirrorless (R6) this year so that opens up even more wide options but the cost of RF lenses is prohibitive, also some of the ultra wide RF lenses do have weird distortion at the wide end and once corrected you are not as wide as you thought you were, the 16-35 f4 looks like the sweet spot of sharpness, correct distortion, tad wider, IS for slow handhelds and price.

The 16-35 f4 is around £500/£600 for a mint used example which is fine, at that price I'll keep the little 17-40 as back up, even at that cost I wonder what difference I'll see sharpness wise, the 17-40 has performed very well on my 5D4 when stopped down and is nowhere near as bad as many people make it out to be but then I'm not shooting F4..

I have both (17-40mm f4.0L and the 16-35mm f4.0L). Both are sharp, the 16-35mm is a tad sharper wide open. As far as the IS goes, I really haven't noticed any improvement with it hand held at slower speeds over my non-IS lenses.