Question for 16-35 F2.8L II Owners...

Did you upgrade from the 17-40? If so, Why? What do you think of your decision in hindsight?

Thanks.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10184290
Did you upgrade from the 17-40? If so, Why? What do you think of your decision in hindsight?

Thanks.

I don't have a 17-40.

I have 24-105, 70-200,100-400 and bought it to get wide angle - I know there is a lot of overlap with the 24-105, but the 2.8 is useful for me.

Like the lens? - yes.

Could I live without it ? yes (but I do love the look of wide angle...............)

its a luxury item as far as I am concerned - for a hobbyist as I am.

Yes, 17-40 -> 16-35 I -> 16-35 II. All depends on the 17-40 you get...I was never very impressed with mine. Thought the right side was slightly softer than the left but Canon said it was within spec. Pretty happy with the 16-35 II but I've been shooting a Zeiss 21 a lot more lately.

Bump!

I have both and will be selling the 16-35 eventually. I see no IQ difference and the small advantage in aperture is easily made up with the ISO performance of the 5D2.

K6AZ wrote in post #10192541
I have both and will be selling the 16-35 eventually. I see no IQ difference and the small advantage in aperture is easily made up with the ISO performance of the 5D2.

Thanks for the forthright reply.

I just need to decide if I NEED those extra stops or not...

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10193016
Thanks for the forthright reply.

I just need to decide if I NEED those extra stops or not...

Actually it is a single stop.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10184290
Did you upgrade from the 17-40? If so, Why? What do you think of your decision in hindsight?

Thanks.

yes. i really love the 16-35L II. i wanted a fast zoom for africa that i could use on both 1.6 and 1.3 crop and today i use it mostly on FF but also on 1.3 crop. great lens, and my fastest.

ed rader

K6AZ wrote in post #10192541
I have both and will be selling the 16-35 eventually. I see no IQ difference and the small advantage in aperture is easily made up with the ISO performance of the 5D2.

the lens is a stop faster no matter how you slice it .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #10193060
the lens is a stop faster no matter how you slice it .

ed rader

Doesn't equate into better IQ and that single stop is easily made up in other ways. There seems to be a prevailing thought with a lot of people that wider aperture equals better IQ and that's just not the case comparing equally sharp copies of the 17-40 and 16-35.

K6AZ wrote in post #10193081
Doesn't equate into better IQ and that single stop is easily made up in other ways. There seems to be a prevailing thought with a lot of people that wider aperture equals better IQ and that's just not the case comparing equally sharp copies of the 17-40 and 16-35.

my 16-35L II is at least as sharp wide open than the best of the three copies of the 17-40L that i have owned. i shoot at f3.2 - f3.5 alot so for me the 16-35L II is at least a solid one stop faster than the best copy of the 17-40L that i have owned even when evaluated on an IQ basis.

f3.2

ed rader wrote in post #10193217
my 16-35L II is at least as sharp wide open than the best of the three copies of the 17-40L that i have owned. i shoot at f3.2 - f3.5 alot so for me the 16-35L II is at least a solid one stop faster than the best copy of the 17-40L that i have owned even when evaluated on an IQ basis.

ed rader

As far as QC with the 17-40 that is definitely an issue, my first copy was so bad that MA cranked all the way in either direction didn't help it.

As far as speed, this may be a personal preference. I use this range and the 24-105/24-70 for outdoor shots usually in sunlight and most of the time in the f/7.1-f/11 range so that extra stop does nothing for me. I'm also seeing this with the 24-70/24-105 comparison. When I do need speed, usually indoors I prefer the really fast primes.

This reminds me of a question I posed to you a few days ago regarding shots in the f/16 range and I didn't see you answer, are you running those f/16 shots through correction software such as DXO?

So 17-40 copy differences are that much?

K6AZ wrote in post #10193275
As far as QC with the 17-40 that is definitely an issue, my first copy was so bad that MA cranked all the way in either direction didn't help it.

As far as speed, this may be a personal preference. I use this range and the 24-105/24-70 for outdoor shots usually in sunlight and most of the time in the f/7.1-f/11 range so that extra stop does nothing for me. I'm also seeing this with the 24-70/24-105 comparison. When I do need speed, usually indoors I prefer the really fast primes.

This reminds me of a question I posed to you a few days ago regarding shots in the f/16 range and I didn't see you answer, are you running those f/16 shots through correction software such as DXO?

sorry i missed the question. no. if i don't like the distortion i just don't process the file.

ed rader

windpig wrote in post #10193351
So 17-40 copy differences are that much?

no. every copy of the 17-40L that i owned was acceptable to me. i just never liked f4 but then again i never intentionally shoot wide open with a zoom unless it's the 70-200L f4 IS or i don't have a choice .

ed rader