EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L vs EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L

Has anyone used both of these lenses on the same camera and if so how does the picture quality compare? I know one is faster but am mostly concerned with IQ.

both have top notch IQ. ive used both myself and i didnt see any discernable IQ difference, especially when stopped down for landscapes. actually one review on luminouslandscapes said that the 17-40 is sharper. im sure someone will have that link for you.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

a good comparison BUT I don't quite buy it.

I have a 16-35, the flare shouldn't be that much when you point it to the sun.

But I have to admit that the corner resolution of 16-35 is worse than 17-40. But the 16-35's center resolution is one of the best, even better than nikkor's counterpart.

f/2.8 is very important if you want to use a wide-angle lens indoor. Most of time I notice that I used 16-35 with fully open aperture at ISO 800 indoor, Which means it's not good to use 17-40, if you are going to take a lot pictures in dark.

If you are OK with flash then indoor work with the f/4 is fine. If not then quite frankly you have to go f/2.8 - and even then it might not be fast enough.

Both lenses are superb. but you pay a lot more for that f/2.8!

There's not many times I look to save money. That said, I bought the 17-40 instead of the 16-35 because it is half the price.

If money is not a consideration, go with the 16-35. I wish I had.

If weight is a factor, the 17-40 is a pleasure to carry around in comparison.

mark

I've used both.
The one/stop IS the difference, not IQ. You will likely not see any IQ difference on most shots under most normal conditions. Both beautiful. Both focus close and have a good magnification ratio for WA lenses. Both rugged. Both have internal zoom. Both flare. All ultra wide angles flare, so what's the BFD? Don't point lens that way.
On an APS-C camera, both are - extremely rarely - not quite wide enough at event critical moments, and - much more frequently - not quite long enough at event critical moments. On 1-DMkII, the 16-35 is extreme.

I sold 17-40 for the 16-35 for event work, to activate center cross precision focus point sensor in low light with Q-Flash (only works with center FP). If you're getting paid to get an event shot, can't risk NOT having the money shot under any light, get (from your employer) a 16-35 f/2.8.
If you take outdoor landscapes, cityscapes, outdoors, or indoor casual events with flash, get the 17-40.
At f/2.8 through f/4 the 16-35 is alot sharper (haha). My experience with my 16-35 compared with my 17-40 was that 16-35 rendered sharper contrastier images near the center at f/4-4.5-5.0. Beyond that, same-same.

Take my experience with a grain of salt, because the 16-35L is my LEAST used expensive lens. I am judicious in WA use, only using WA as a story telling lens, or to "pull" viewers into the frame (like http://aesop.rutgers.e​du …yClarin_BatMitz​vah_39.htm) and I find landscape photography really boring. Like looking at them, but not shooting them. Once in while I'll use WA on a landscape feature like http://aesop.rutgers.e​du …/SunflowerProdu​ction2.htm or http://aesop.rutgers.e​du …/SunflowerProdu​ction3.htm

If I were a serious WA person, which I am not, I would just buy a 5D and 24-105 f/4L IS. In all the years I shot 35mm film, I never once felt I missed a shot, or it could have been improved significantly wider than 24mm focal length. APS-C and APS-H cameras are great, but seriously compromised if you see the world wide angle. I don't.
Hope that helps. Jack

Tough choice. If the cost was the same virtually everyone will get the 16-35. Is it worth the extra money?

Thanks for all the advice. Since I don't shoot much indoors I think I will rent the 17-40L and see how I like it.

HughScot wrote in post #2221614
Thanks for all the advice. Since I don't shoot much indoors I think I will rent the 17-40L and see how I like it.

That's the best way to find out. If you do landscapes, you will love this lens and not need the 2.8.

im selling my 17-40 only because i want a 24-70 but if i didnt need to i wouldnt, i use my 580EX exclusively with it and love it, amazing IQ, amazing colour rendition just an overall superb lens HOWEVER if i wasnt using the flash i would no doubt need the 16-35 and thats one of my other reasons for selling the 17-40 its just not fast enough indoors (for me) without the flash so i will eventually buy the 16-35, BUT if its outdoors work where you mainly shoot upwards of f8 the 17-40 is great and really there is no need to go to the 16-35 and for me on my 30D its WIDE very WIDE for me cant imagine how wide it would be on a FF body.

I have owned both at times. The 17-40L is one of the best lenses for the buck, if you do not need F/2.8, then the 17-40L is a no brainer

Image quality of the 17-40 and 16-35 are very similar, so the real question is whether it is worth the extra money to you to get a one stop faster lens.

I have both the 17-40 and the 17-55 EF-S. If you are going to use the lens on an EF-S camera, the 17-55 is a better choice. It has the same image quality, is one stop faster and has image stabilization.