16mm-35mm vs 17mm-40mm

Which one of these lenses work best for shooting weddings and why?

The 16-35mm because it's a stop faster than the 17-40.

Any differences with picture quality? The 17-40 is a sharp lens, so I cannot imaging the 16mm-35mm being sharper.

Like I said, the 16-35mm is a stop faster, that should be more important than any sharpness differences. If you need f/2.8, go for the 16-35, otherwise the 17-40 should suit you fine.

IQ wise, there isn't enough of a difference to really speak of. Really the only reason to get the 16-35 is if you need the extra light. For wedding photography considering the varying light conditions, I would opt for the 16-35.

Photoman65 wrote in post #6147531
Any differences with picture quality? The 17-40 is a sharp lens, so I cannot imaging the 16mm-35mm being sharper.

Keep working on your imagination, I think. The 16-35/II is a very nice lens. If you shoot in low light, it is the right choice.

Ed rader wasn't a believer but then he switched.

TheHoff wrote in post #6147823
Keep working on your imagination, I think. The 16-35/II is a very nice lens. If you shoot in low light, it is the right choice.

Ed rader wasn't a believer but then he switched.

How's that 16-35 look on that 3D?

mattograph wrote in post #6156002
How's that 16-35 look on that 3D?

I'm sorry I am unable to comment on that right now.

TheHoff wrote in post #6147823
Keep working on your imagination, I think. The 16-35/II is a very nice lens. If you shoot in low light, it is the right choice.

Ed rader wasn't a believer but then he switched.

i was skeptical about the 16-35L II because i really liked the 17-40L....and the 16-35L II cost so much more .

both of theses lenses are UWA EF lenses but when used on crop cameras they are more like normal zooms and can become walkarounds so the extra f-stop is desirable.
in short i took the plunge and the 16-35L II has become my main lens on my 1d mark III. i love it and besides the extra stop i think it's sharper than the 17-40L .

ed rader

IMO, the 16-35 is the most versatile, awesome lens in Canon's lineup. It is an AMAZING lens for weddings and I find myself using it a lot. AND, it's really fun!

Haven't owned the 17-40, but my question would be: Why would you? Unless you cannot afford the 16-35... Other than that, buy it!

Well...the 17-40L is half the price of the 16-35MKII. For a lot of folks, that's reason enough!

My line of thinking was similar to Ed's. When I moved from a FF to a 1.3x crop, all of a sudden, the 16-xx range was desireable now.

I would have gone the 17-40L route if it was a lens I wasn't going to use on a regular basis.

collierportraits wrote in post #6156603
IMO, the 16-35 is the most versatile, awesome lens in Canon's lineup. It is an AMAZING lens for weddings and I find myself using it a lot. AND, it's really fun!

Haven't owned the 17-40, but my question would be: Why would you? Unless you cannot afford the 16-35... Other than that, buy it!

i went with the 17-40L because it was cheaper and had great image quality. the 16-35 has slightly better image quality and is a stop faster, but is it worth the extra money? maybe.. but for what i do. no. do i think it's worth it? no, unless you are loaded, then anything is worth it.

brianch wrote in post #6156955
i went with the 17-40L because it was cheaper and had great image quality. the 16-35 has slightly better image quality and is a stop faster, but is it worth the extra money? maybe.. but for what i do. no. do i think it's worth it? no, unless you are loaded, then anything is worth it.

Thank you! Since I mostly use primes my 24-105 is collecting dust, and I'm thinking of replacing it with a wide zoom for my 5D. (Or maybe keep it and still get a wide zoom. ) My widest prime is 35L. I have had a hard time deciding between 16-35 and 17-40, but I think you just convinced me to get the 17-40. It should be perfect since I mainly intend to use it for landscapes.

Helena wrote in post #6157255
Thank you! Since I mostly use primes my 24-105 is collecting dust, and I'm thinking of replacing it with a wide zoom for my 5D. (Or maybe keep it and still get a wide zoom. ) My widest prime is 35L. I have had a hard time deciding between 16-35 and 17-40, but I think you just convinced me to get the 17-40. It should be perfect since I mainly intend to use it for landscapes.

This is why I went 17-40 over the 16-35. My use is mainly landscapes with this lens and it's always stopped down.

If I were doing more weddings mixed in, I'd probably sell the 17-40 and get the 16-35 for the extra stop.

In terms of landscapes on a FF camera, is there any significant advantage to getting the 16-35 MK II?