5DII + EF16-35II vs. 17-40

Has this been debated to death?

Is the 17-40 truly terrible on the 5DII? Is the 16-35 F2.8L II worth 2x the price at F4?

How has/had both?

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10124955
Has this been debated to death?

Sorta, yeah.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10124955
Is the 17-40 truly terrible on the 5DII?

Not at all.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10124955
Is the 16-35 F2.8L II worth 2x the price at F4?

It depends. If you NEED the faster aperture, then get the faster lens. Even if you're going to be shooting at f/4 all the time, then you probably want to opt for the 16-35. But if you're going to be at f/5.6 and above most of the time, save your cash and get the 17-40.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10124955
How has/had both?

I have, and I have the 17-40 now. I also have a 14L II, which I use for most of my UWA needs, as it's a better performer than both of the zooms, but I keep the 17-40 for landscape situations when I want to use filters--it's also a good general zoom lens.

^^^^^ This

alpha_1976 wrote in post #10125004
^^^^^ This

+2

The only reason to get the 16-35 is if you need to shoot faster than f/4. I've done some testing with both lenses on the 5D2 and for outdoor daytime shots I can't spot any real differences. Larger aperture does not equal superior IQ if there is sufficient light.

What about everything I've read about the 5DII "outresolving" the 17-40 (and not the 16-35 II)?

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10125460
What about everything I've read about the 5DII "outresolving" the 17-40 (and not the 16-35 II)?

I've read that before and have to call BS on it.

Atleast mine is not out resolving! Or may be I am not pixel peeping enough everytime I take a picture

If you are shooting landscapes then save your money and get the 17-40 instead. It is a good lens.

just buy a used 17-40 and if you dont like it upgrade to the 16-35. i doubt you will see a differenceif you are shooting at f/4 and above.

the only reason i sold my 17-40 and went with the 16-35 was that I needed an UWA at the fastest aperture i could get since i shoot bands. my 17-40 stayed home for this and was only used outdoors. the expensive upgrade will allow me to get much more use out of this focal range.

I almost bought the 16-35 until I read reviews about the Zeiss 21mm outperforming both the Canon zoom UWAs. After doing some thorough research, I went ahead and bought it. It's a ridiculous lens (albeit at a ridiculous price); but, if you can afford it and don't need the extra 5mm (16 and 21 is VERY different), it might be worth your while to take a look.

Having said that, I haven't ever shot with the 16-35 or the 17-40 and I have seen some outstanding photographs result from both.

Best of luck.

Last Saturday I shot a wedding and for the outdoors shots of the crowd I used the 17-40 f4L, 16-35 f2.8L II and the Sigma 14mm f2.8 and the two Canons performed almost exactly the same!

I must admit, on FF the corner sharpness on both lenses through the aperture range is pretty bad! CA is visible at corners as well! I shot at f16 and there is still noticeable softness at extreme corners!

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10125460
What about everything I've read about the 5DII "outresolving" the 17-40 (and not the 16-35 II)?

K6AZ wrote in post #10125489
I've read that before and have to call BS on it.

Agreed, it's bull****.

MHO wrote in post #10125745
Last Saturday I shot a wedding and for the outdoors shots of the crowd I used the 17-40 f4L, 16-35 f2.8L II and the Sigma 14mm f2.8 and the two Canons performed almost exactly the same!

I must admit, on FF the corner sharpness on both lenses through the aperture range is pretty bad! CA is visible at corners as well! I shot at f16 and there is still noticeable softness at extreme corners!

That is a big ouch for the 16-35 IMO.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10126056
That is a big ouch for the 16-35 IMO.

Let's put it this way; my mate who had rented the 16-35 f2.8 II did so to test it against my 17-40 and he was so disappointed that he carried on using his 24-105!

MHO wrote in post #10125745
Last Saturday I shot a wedding and for the outdoors shots of the crowd I used the 17-40 f4L, 16-35 f2.8L II and the Sigma 14mm f2.8 and the two Canons performed almost exactly the same!

I must admit, on FF the corner sharpness on both lenses through the aperture range is pretty bad! CA is visible at corners as well! I shot at f16 and there is still noticeable softness at extreme corners!

This isn't the first time I've read this knock on the 16-35/17-40 either. Having shot with both on FF I classify these complaints as nitpicking by pixel peepers. I don't know of any UW zoom that doesn't exhibit some softness at the extreme corners.

BTW, what's the purpose of outdoor shots @ f/16?