Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

On my 5D2 my 16-35 is enjoying life

Couple of snaps from yesterday

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=7462411&post​count=1266

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=7462508&post​count=1271

Kajuah wrote in post #7357501
Is this lens as sharp as the 11-16 tokina 2.8 (on aps-c) in equivalency if it's used on a 5D mark II (full frame)?

I'm contemplating selling the 11-16 tokina for this lens to put on my 5D mark II, thoughts on a comparison? It seems very close.

The 16-35 flares more than the Tokina. But the 11-16mm isn't really useful much below the 16mm range. Vignettes way too bad.

Just replaced my 17-40 with this lens--the 17-40 might have been a bit sharper, but this one's good enough, and I wanted/needed the extra stop and the extra 1mm.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Just picked up a 16-35I last week (because of ^ Markitos honestly)... Decided to give 2.8 a try again but I can't come to grips with the II version and it's hood and 82mm filters...

anywho, so far so good:
#1

So which is a better choice if money is not an issue, 16-35L or 17-40L?

Tareq wrote in post #7575256
So which is a better choice if money is not an issue, 16-35L or 17-40L?

That will just get you the same old answer: "Depends on what you're looking for".

An extra stop of light is always good. Almost every photographer will shoot in low-light conditions at some point. The extra 1mm at the wide end and the extra 5mm of length are negligible. I would always choose an "L" lens over anything else.

Spazzmodicus wrote in post #7575799
That will just get you the same old answer: "Depends on what you're looking for".

+1... there are many considerations other than price--sharpness, contrast, size, weight, etc. For me, the 17-40 was perfect until I started shooting inside more without flash, and found that I was having to really push ISOs to get usable images. That extra stop, then, became a higher priority than size/weight/sharpness, etc.

Spazzmodicus wrote in post #7575799
That will just get you the same old answer: "Depends on what you're looking for".

An extra stop of light is always good. Almost every photographer will shoot in low-light conditions at some point. The extra 1mm at the wide end and the extra 5mm of length are negligible. I would always choose an "L" lens over anything else.

Markitos wrote in post #7575933
+1... there are many considerations other than price--sharpness, contrast, size, weight, etc. For me, the 17-40 was perfect until I started shooting inside more without flash, and found that I was having to really push ISOs to get usable images. That extra stop, then, became a higher priority than size/weight/sharpness, etc.

Understood, then it is not the money issue only.
In this case i am happy with my choice, as i need low light cabapility, and weight is not an issue with me at all, sure i will see that 16-35 and 17-40 almost same weight or both are light to me after using 24-70 and 70-200 2.8IS and 300 all handholding.
About sharpness, i couldn't see any difference in sharpness between 16-35L and 17-40L on websites, unless i print shots from both lenses and check them side by side, or getting the original sizes shots taken by both lenses and compare both together, i don't take those websites test of lenses, i do trust myself tests and i heard that 16-35 is sharped in center but 17-40 is sharper in corners, what will happen if i crop then?

Really? I find the corners to be fairly soft wide open on the 16-35 mkI, but this doesn't really come as a surprise to me. The markII is supposed to have better corner sharpness.

It's pretty much a non-issue for me, but for some it might matter.

Markitos wrote in post #7576788
Really? I find the corners to be fairly soft wide open on the 16-35 mkI, but this doesn't really come as a surprise to me. The markII is supposed to have better corner sharpness.

It's pretty much a non-issue for me, but for some it might matter.

I said that 16-35 is sharp in center not corner, and 17-40 is sharper in corner than 16-35, read my post above again, and in fact i don't talk about wide open all the time.

Tareq wrote in post #7579139
I said that 16-35 is sharp in center not corner, and 17-40 is sharper in corner than 16-35, read my post above again, and in fact i don't talk about wide open all the time.

Ah, gotcha. I would say that they are at least equal in center-sharpness, with maybe the 17-40 being slightly better. I don't have any side by side tests because they'd be boring, but I can say that the 16-35 is satisfactorily sharp for me, even wide open. However, my tolerance for sharpness may be a bit looser than others.