Difference between 16-35 and 17-40

Except the obvious, one got a faster aperture, one mm more on the wide-end (or 1.6mm in my world), and one cost half of the other.. On photozone.de the 16-35 is rated optically higher, but on fredmiranda.com the 17-40 wins by good margain. Size/weight didn't seem to be very different either, from what I've tried to convert from Oz, Lb's and whatnot into our metric system =)

To put it very simply, is the 16-35 worth the price unless you _VERY_ much need the 2.8 on the wide-end?

Try here

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

Already read it, but those MTF-charts (or what it's named) really doesn't mean zip to me.. I was hoping someone here had tried both and could give an oppinion. It's so nice to have someone you at least remotely know to recommend stuff, cause then you know who to mailbomb if the tip turns out to be bad

Oh yeah: I can of course see the test-shots there too (which mean a lot more to me), but I'm not willing to base my payment on one review, as there are good/bad samples, and who knows what he might have gotten :P

vvizard wrote:
Already read it, but those MTF-charts (or what it's named) really doesn't mean zip to me.. I was hoping someone here had tried both and could give an oppinion.

Why not read the article that comes with the MTF charts?

That guy there *does* compare the two lenses and *does* gives an opinion ... that the 17-40 is maybe the better lens at half the price with the only disadvantage of the f/4 vs. f/2.8 ... which will most likely be a non-issue in 95 % of wide angle applications ...

So what else are you looking for, exactly ?

Just my thoughts,
Andy

Andythaler wrote:
So what else are you looking for, exactly ?

Just my thoughts,
Andy

Others to back up his conclusions And please remember.. I'm a top-contributer myself now, so you _SHALL NOT_ ask me awkward questions, you shall just asume that when I ask something silly, I have a _VERY GOOD_ reason for doing so, possible without the rest of you understanding why. That's the whole deal of beeing top contributer, isn't it? You can ask all stupid questions you like, and everyone will think it got a "higher meaning"?

Oh yeah, that was a joke btw.. But seriously, I can't find any good "side-by-side" tests of theese lenses except that one, and I don't believe blindly in what I read in one test alone.

Sorry, I didn't realize you are one of those few 'top contributors' who actually contribute something meaningful to this forum....

... I had just assumed you were one of that bunch fooling around all the time and making stupid jokes about ducks' rear ends and so on like ... myself, e.g.

I've read some of Michael Reichman's Canon lens reviews (e.g. http://www.luminous-landscape.com …lenses/canon_le​nses.shtml or http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/24-vs-24.shtml )that gave me the basic impression that he knows a bit about what he's talking about. (that is, until he started reviewing Sony digicams recently :lol

But you're absolutely right, it would be good to have other opinions as well.

Best regards,
Andy

I seriously trust this guy myself, I just know that unless he have had a batch of those lenses, and gotten consistent results with every of them, one review alone doesn't mean s*it to me I'm afraid, as good/bad samples occur :/ And specially since the review-sites all over the net rate these lenses different, It'll be hard to know. But I'm fortunate, I can try out the 17-40 almost anytime I like. The 16-35 on the other hand would be more difficult, as I know nobody who owns it :/

Here's a couple of lens reviews from Popular Photography to add to the list of samples:

http://www.popphoto.co​m …icle_id=607&pag​e_number=1

http://www.popphoto.co​m …ction_id=2&arti​cle_id=799

The first is the 16-35 and the second one is the 17-40.

I just bought the 16-35 and it is the most increadible lens I have ever used. I am at work now and dont have the files but next week I will post one from it. Wow. It is increadibly wide, especially on my 1ds which is 1 to 1. I cant speak for the other lens, however, I use the lens mostly for landscape shots which are usually in good light. some interiors but if I need to, I would shot on a tripod. The low f-stop would not be as important to me as the sharpness of the lense.

If you need the 2.8 (which we always pay dearly for) then get the 16-35. Otherwise, save a gob of $$$ and get the 17-40. Optically they are pretty freaking close. I went with the 17-40 and have not looked back. Most of my shoots are outdoor and I have a flash for low-light, so the 17-40 fit my bag perfectly.

Let's see, I have roughly $1300. . . . . . . I can either get a 17-40 f/4 L and the 70-200 f/4 L. OR, a 16-35 f/2.8.

Haven't got either lens but, Hey!

Whaler wrote:
Let's see, I have roughly $1300. . . . . . . I can either get a 17-40 f/4 L and the 70-200 f/4 L. OR, a 16-35 f/2.8.

If you shoot mostly outdoors, then go for the 2-for-1 special!

Totally OT: I love your sig!