Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?

  
 
PhotoDim
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?




Hi everyone. I've been using the 17-40mm f/4L about a year with my 5D III. Most of my photography is landscapes and cityscapes. The lens has been great, and is very sharp in the center. My only complaint (similar to most other 17-40 owners) is that the lens can be soft in the corners, especially when shooting something from a low perspective (such as a waterfall).

I am considering upgrading to the new 16-35mm f/4L IS which has received positive reviews. I can probably sell my pristine condition 17-40mm for about $600, and then the upgrade to the 16-35mm will effectively cost me $500.

Is this a worthy upgrade as far as overall IQ?

Another issue is this new 11-24mm rumor...I'd hate to get the 16-35mm and then have an 11-24mm come out.

Thanks for the thoughts & suggestions!



Nov 17, 2014 at 08:21 PM
RCADog
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


I'm not sure on the upgrade part, as I don't currently have any wider angle lenses, but after researching the 17-40, 16-35 f2.8 vii, and the 16-35 f4, I ordered the 16-35 f4. Seems to be pretty sharp across the frame, and you can't find one used anywhere. The used values of the the f2.8 and the 17-40 seem to be dropping pretty quick. I am not typically a wide angle shooter, mostly using the 70-200 range, so resale value was pretty high on my list as I was evaluating these three. I don't even know how to use a wide angle properly, lol.


Nov 17, 2014 at 09:26 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


having shot with a 17-40, 16-35, 16-35II, and 16-35 f4 IS, I would say it is absolutely worth the upgrade,
as for a rumored 11-24, do you have a want/need for 11-16mm on a rumored lens, that is rumored to have a buldging front element and not take filters, and is rumored to cost around 3K? if so, for how long are you willing to hold and see if the rumors are substantiated?



Nov 17, 2014 at 10:11 PM
dehowie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


Is the upgrade worth it?
Actually the question is what are you waiting for!



Nov 17, 2014 at 10:12 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


What are you doing with your photographs? Are you shooting from the tripod and making very large, high quality prints? Then perhaps yes. Are you shooting handheld and mostly sharing electronic copies? Perhaps not.


Nov 17, 2014 at 11:16 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


gdanmitchell wrote:
What are you doing with your photographs? Are you shooting from the tripod and making very large, high quality prints? Then perhaps yes. Are you shooting handheld and mostly sharing electronic copies? Perhaps not.


Dan, disagree.
If you shooting hand held, and not from tripod, there is even more reason to get the IS lens.
IS is not and ultimates substitute for tripod, but with 16-35 f4 IS, you can shoot at 16 mm f 5.6, 1/30 second, at say ISO 200 during golden hour and have many perfectly sharp images for 20x30 prints, if the subject works such that dof allows. and I speak from experience, here as I have a 30 inch wide print of this shot hanging in my house.

lredit-20140907-IMG_3370-dualiso-Edit by kevindar, on Flickr




you will have to stop down to 17-40 to f11 and need at least twice faster shutter speed, and your corners will still be worse.

I dont advocate shooting landscape without a tripod,



Nov 17, 2014 at 11:57 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


IS is indeed very helpful for us OF. I had to twist extreme left and hang out a skyscraper window to take this image. Would have preferred a tripod but it wasn't physically possible. So very thankful for IS!




Nov 18, 2014 at 12:03 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


kevindar wrote:
having shot with a 17-40, 16-35, 16-35II, and 16-35 f4 IS, I would say it is absolutely worth the upgrade,...


+1




Nov 18, 2014 at 07:09 AM
Steven Campbel
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


Lens vs lens it looks like the new 16-35 f4 is a winner and an upgrade from the 17-40, which is still a decent lens. However, you may not get $600 for the 17-40. I have seen prices on the used market drop to $450 for good copies. That's pretty much giving the lens away. I was going to do the same, but couldn't get even $500 locally for my 17-40. A new 16-35 is $1300 plus 13% sales tax in my province in Canada, so I was looking at a $1000 + to upgrade. This would include pretty much giving away a good L lens for peanuts, for a price you can barely buy an entry level EF-S lens for. I decided it wasn't worth it, mostly based on the refusal to let the 17-40 go for nothing. I'm going to keep it as it's small, light, paid for and still a good performer. So much for Canon L lenses holding thier value.


Nov 18, 2014 at 07:15 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


Steve's right, but I thought I'd mention that the CPS Canada price for the 16-35/4L IS is $1125 (CA).

Current Lens$db eBay prices for the 17-40/4L vary from about $460 US [E to E+] to $580 US [M- to LN]. I match eBay prices (after currency exchange and seller fees) when selling gear locally on Kijiji about one-third of the time; otherwise, I either accept less or auction it on eBay.

P.S. Steve, if you divide $1000 by the number of weeks that you've owned the 17-40/4L to calculate the "effective rental cost", then it doesn't seem so bad.



Nov 18, 2014 at 07:24 AM
Steven Campbel
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


jcolwell wrote:
Steve's right, but I thought I'd mention that the CPS Canada price for the 16-35/4L IS is $1125 (CA).

Current Lens$db eBay prices for the 17-40/4L vary from about $460 US [E to E+] to $580 US [M- to LN]. I match eBay prices (after currency exchange and seller fees) when selling gear locally on Kijiji about one-third of the time; otherwise, I either accept less or auction it on eBay.

P.S. Steve, if you divide $1000 by the number of weeks that you've owned the 17-40/4L to calculate the "effective rental cost", then it doesn't seem so bad.


I hear you. I may pick this lens up later, but right now it just doesn't work for me. There are a few other items I may want to spend my money instead (7D II, 100-400 II, 35 1.4 II if it ever comes out).



Nov 18, 2014 at 07:35 AM
IrishDino
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


The 16-35 f4 is an interesting lens. For landscapes its a no brainer IMO. Where I take pause is the usefulness of f4 inside. But Canon doesn't really have a sharp wide angle at 2.8, and you can bet on the fact that if they did, you'd be looking at $2000+ easily.

The other question I have about the lens is how well it performs at 24mm @ f4 vs the 24-70 2.8 II at the same focal length and aperture.



Nov 18, 2014 at 08:17 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


I consider the 24mm to 35mm overlap region between my 16-35/4L IS and 24-70/2.8L II to be a "backup zone"; meaning, I don't need to bring a dedicated 24mm or 35mm backup lens, because 'the other' zoom has it covered. They're both plenty good in this region.


Nov 18, 2014 at 08:52 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


For me the 17-40/4 is a keeper lens and one of my most used ones. Performs excellent both on my 5D MkIIs and on my Sony A7R. I normally use f-stops between 8 to 16 with this lens and never had issues with corner unsharpness. Other reason for me to keep the 17-40 lens is its outstanding performance in infrared light which is often an issue especially with wide and ultra wide angle lenses.
Zero need to upgrade to the 16-35/4 IS lens. Also never felt the need for IS for focal lengths below 135 mm.



Nov 18, 2014 at 09:28 AM
Steven Campbel
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


retrofocus wrote:
For me the 17-40/4 is a keeper lens and one of my most used ones. Performs excellent both on my 5D MkIIs and on my Sony A7R. I normally use f-stops between 8 to 16 with this lens and never had issues with corner unsharpness. Other reason for me to keep the 17-40 lens is its outstanding performance in infrared light which is often an issue especially with wide and ultra wide angle lenses.
Zero need to upgrade to the 16-35/4 IS lens. Also never felt the need for IS for focal lengths below 135 mm.


Something tells me you feel the lens is worth more than a paltry $450 which the used market has deemed it is now worth.



Nov 18, 2014 at 09:36 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


Steven -- OTOH, selling your existing 17-40 for $450-500 USD is a fair amount toward the new 16-35/4. And you'll be taking much better photos, even at f/11. I think it is the smart thing to do if you can get over your feeling that you are losing money and concentrate on the IQ aspect. I faced the same choice a few years ago when I sold my 17-40 for a brand new 16-35/2.8L II (which is quite a bit more). I never looked back and started taking better photos right away.

Lenses (and bodies) are only worth what people are willing to pay, not what the seller feels they are worth.

But if you are only shooting for your own pleasure, it might make sense to just use what you have and not worry about new gear.

Edited on Nov 18, 2014 at 09:43 AM · View previous versions



Nov 18, 2014 at 09:42 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


Steven Campbel wrote:
Something tells me you feel the lens is worth more than a paltry $450 which the used market has deemed it is now worth.


To me personally the lens is one of my best Canon lenses simply also because I am using it very often. I have no intention to sell it, therefore I couldn't care less for the used price . Drop in price for the 17-40/4 is not only affected by alternative/newer Canon lenses like the 16-35/4 IS but also by new competitive products like the Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4 which just hit the market. Many landscape shooters added the Sony A7R to existing Canon gear, some now are switching to FE mount lenses in focal lengths availabale and of interest to them.



Nov 18, 2014 at 09:42 AM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


in my test, yes, the 24-70II wins at 24mm, even at f8 and f11 in the corners, though the difference is not so much, that I would actually care. at 35mm. my copy of the two, 16-35 dees worse in corners at f4, but better at f 5.6 and f8. I would actually perfectly happily use it over 24-70II. copy variations exist I am sure.


Nov 18, 2014 at 10:16 AM
Perdu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


I have sold many images using the 17-40L and have never had a client complain about image quality. I don't think I'd sell any more if I upgraded. Only you know if that bit more sharpness across the frame and IS is worth $500.00. For me it's not. Good luck with your decision.


Nov 18, 2014 at 10:22 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Upgrade 17-40 for new 16-35mm f/4L ?


ZachOly wrote:
The 16-35 f4 is an interesting lens. For landscapes its a no brainer IMO. Where I take pause is the usefulness of f4 inside. But Canon doesn't really have a sharp wide angle at 2.8, and you can bet on the fact that if they did, you'd be looking at $2000+ easily.

The other question I have about the lens is how well it performs at 24mm @ f4 vs the 24-70 2.8 II at the same focal length and aperture.


that has to depend on what your shooting inside . if it moves then yes 2.8 is still the trump but anything else and even 2 stops of IS is a better benefit (as its newer IS it should be more but ive seen a couple of reports that at the wide end its IS is less than 3-4 stops) . add to that you dont always want to shoot a 2.8 wide open and the f4 looks a much better option .




Nov 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.