16-35 vs 17-40

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2004 · 16-35 vs 17-40

csebasti
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · 16-35 vs 17-40

I've pretty much decided on buying the 20D with 18-55mm kit lens. I expect that in the near future, however, I will want to upgrade the lens. I figure for just $70 or so, I can get the 18-55 now, and then have some time to figure out what lens I really want while learning the camera.

So, I'm a little confused on the differences, preferences, etc between the 16-35 and 17-40. From what I've read over the last few days, it seems more people are using the 17-40. I spoke to someone in a shop who had a terrible time with the 17-40 on his 20D and got a 16-35 instead. He said the color and contrast were much better on the 16-35. Would you guys agree with this? Seems like plenty of people here are using the 17-40 on their 20D. At roughly half the price, the 17-40 would make the wallet feel better. Is that a big reason for its popularity, aside from image quality?

Dec 17, 2004 at 08:05 AM

The Big Bad
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.1 #2 · 16-35 vs 17-40

Well if you just shoot landscapes etc theres no need for f2.8 so why spend twice as much if you dont need it right ?

On the other hand, if your do alot of low light work, you'll find that f4 lens may be rather useless and in that case its one expensive paper weight.

Dec 17, 2004 at 08:27 AM

Moody
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · 16-35 vs 17-40

f/2.8 is also rather useless in low light.
You'll need f/1.8 and high ISO.

The 17-40 f/4L is a very nice lens with a even better price.
For me it was a no-brainer, because I don't need f/2.8 at wide angle. Also because you can use longer shutter speeds at wide angle (I get sharp pictures with 1/25s at 17mm)

Save a few hundred $$$ with the 17-40 and use it to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 instead of the f/4L version. f/2.8 at 200mm is far more "important" for most people than f/2.8 at 17mm.

Dec 17, 2004 at 09:25 AM

jmraso
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · 16-35 vs 17-40

Hello !!!

My expensive 16 35 is not very sharp at 2.8 so I always shoot at f4 so it is as if I had an expensive 17 40.
I would get the 17 40 f4 + 50 1.4 (this one to get speed)

Jaime.
www.jmraso.com

Dec 17, 2004 at 01:01 PM

azpatrick2000
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · 16-35 vs 17-40

I think 20D made the 17-40 even more popular because of the good -high ISO of the 20D. More than made up for the lost light.

Dec 17, 2004 at 01:40 PM

Gerry Szarek
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · 16-35 vs 17-40

I went thru the same decision back 9 months ago, 17-40. Your other option is keep the kit lens, and go for the high end really wide zooms. The kit lens when stopped down 3 stops isn't bad, and combined with a 50 F1.4 actually works pretty good.

Dec 17, 2004 at 01:40 PM

neliw
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · 16-35 vs 17-40

Of course more people use the 17-40, it's cheaper. But you get what you pay for.

My 16-35 is sharp all over, even at 2.8. In my opinion it's worth the extra cash, 2.8 might save the day and makes indoor photography avaliable in more situations.

I can only recommend it.

Dec 17, 2004 at 01:42 PM

DaShiv
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · 16-35 vs 17-40

Moody wrote:
f/2.8 is also rather useless in low light.
You'll need f/1.8 and high ISO.

I have both the 16-35/2.8 and the 24/1.4, and I'll use either one in low light. I'll take the zoom when I can use it and the prime if the light calls for it, but the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is still a stop--and a stop is never "useless" in low light, no matter where it comes from. The 20D's high ISO performance especially has allowed me to get away with using the zoom's "slow" f/2.8 in places I previously couldn't before. I'd be astounded to see how clean the high ISO performance of a camera would be if it allowed me to use the 17-40/4 in those situations instead. That stop is probably the difference between flash and no flash, or zoom and no zoom.

For the original poster:
Arguing about "color and contrast" between the 16-35 and 17-40 is IMO splitting hairs--they're both excellent. The only real difference to get one over the other is if that extra stop is worth the $600 or so price difference to you. If you have any doubts, I'd go with the 17-40 first. It's a popular lens, and you'll have no problems selling it later if that's what it came down to--but odds are very good that you'll wind up keeping it.

Dec 17, 2004 at 02:18 PM

BeeMan458
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · 16-35 vs 17-40

Call me nuts, having a 10D but if I had a 20D, I'd be looking at the 10-22 for my 1.6x sensor cropped sensor body coupled with a 24-70 and a 100-400 IS.

I have the 16-35, which I purchased before the 17-40 came out. And with the low noise capability of the 20D, based upon reports, the 17-40/16-35 debate is pretty much a personal wash. Below is a Luminous Landscape shoot out review between the two lenses that you ask about.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

As to the image quality of the 16-35 question. One might have to go through two or three copies before they get a decent one but when you do, you'll know what a decent WA lense is all about. Mine stays glued to the front of my sensor body, all the time

Hope the above is found helpful.

Dec 17, 2004 at 02:28 PM

Ron Warren
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · 16-35 vs 17-40

Any lens slower than f-2.8 will degrade your focus points to an extent. Check the user's manual for the 20D and it should tell you how this breaks down.

Dec 17, 2004 at 02:33 PM

Moody
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · 16-35 vs 17-40

What is really the deal with this focussing when using lenses faster than f/2.8?

My 50 1.4 focusses still a lot slower than my 17-40 f/4
(Ok, the 50 has got micro usm...)

Dec 17, 2004 at 02:49 PM

John Black
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · 16-35 vs 17-40

More light comes in when while focusing with an F2.8 vs an F4 lens - makes the viewfinder brighter. When the picture is taken the aperature blades move to the set aperature. As focus speeds, that lens dependent - AF lenses have various onboard electronics which contribute to the AF process. No clue how that works..., but aperature is only part of the equation.

The 16-35L balances wonderfully on the 20D and makes a very nice walk around lens. And f2.8 isn't just low light! The 16-35L is also a nice 35mm lens too and with F2.8 you can do some portrait work with a bokeh (although 35mm is nothing like 200mm bokeh at F2.8).

Dec 17, 2004 at 04:28 PM

khiromu
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · 16-35 vs 17-40

What is really the deal with this focussing when using lenses faster than f/2.8?

My 50 1.4 focusses still a lot slower than my 17-40 f/4
(Ok, the 50 has got micro usm...)

~~~

I think you will get more accurate focus with f2.8 or faster lenses not faster focusing speed.

Dec 17, 2004 at 04:48 PM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · 16-35 vs 17-40

I notice with my 20D/ 17-40 that the off-center focusing points are not very accurate compared to when using the center point which, when used, the 17-40 renders perfectly focused, razor sharp portrait shots at 40mm.

I was wondering if my 20D's off center focusing points needed calibration. The 17-40 renders very nice, sharp, colorful, high contrast hsots throughout it's range of zoom and aperature - my most used lens.

Dec 17, 2004 at 05:28 PM

The Big Bad
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.1 #15 · 16-35 vs 17-40

, its kind of funny that people are so strongly opinioned for a given lens, such as Moody for the 17-40 by saying the 16-35 is "useless" for low light and then low and behold, in his equipment profile he owns a 17-40.

Thats the real problem with posting This or That questions on the these forums. Of course what someone owns just has to be better than the alternative, thats why they picked what they did. The only thing is that whats right for their uses may be wrong for your uses since everyone shoots differently.

Now back to Moody, for what he does, even f2.8 may really be useless and he really does need f1.8 or faster. He's completely accurate in that regard to his shooting needs. My needs however are different and I often shoot where f2.8 is just enough and f4 isnt. So for me, that extra stop is all I need to get my shots.

So i guess it comes down to having to make your own decison since your going to hear people for and agaisnt every choice you present.

Dec 17, 2004 at 06:18 PM

aznkid.com
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · 16-35 vs 17-40

to say more people have the 17-40mm rather than the 16-35mm doesn't prove anything about which is better..

i betcha more people have the 50mm f/1.8 over the f1.4

Dec 17, 2004 at 06:34 PM

csebasti
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · 16-35 vs 17-40

I generally shoot landscapes, wildlife, and things like that. So basically, it would be used in landscape shots. So in that sense, it sounds like the 17-40 at the lower cost would be the better option for me since I wouldn't really need the extra stop.

I guess I probably already knew that, but I was a little confused by some opinions I'd heard about differences in image quality. Sounds to me like I may have just gotten some bogus info/opinions. I'm not at a point right now where I'd be able to tell the difference, but I didn't want to be sorry later. But since the 17-40 looks to be a well loved lens, I think I can't really go wrong with it. Now I just need to decide whether I want to drop the cash on it now, or go with the 18-55 for now, and get the 17-40 later.

I think someone here had a good point in telling me to go with the lenses I've got for now until I decide what I really want/need. If I can give in to the desire for new toys, I think that is probably a wise way for me to go.

Dec 17, 2004 at 06:36 PM

aznkid.com
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · 16-35 vs 17-40

csebasti wrote:
I spoke to someone in a shop who had a terrible time with the 17-40 on his 20D and got a 16-35 instead. He said the color and contrast were much better on the 16-35.

they always recommend the more expensive stuff

Dec 17, 2004 at 06:43 PM

csebasti
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · 16-35 vs 17-40

aznkid.com wrote:

they always recommend the more expensive stuff

Actually, it was a customer in the shop that said this. And the only reason he went with the 16-35 was because he'd already tried the 17-40, and it kept freezing up his 20D. But in the end he was glad it worked out that way. Well, other than the part about spending the extra $600.

Dec 17, 2004 at 06:46 PM

aznkid.com
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · 16-35 vs 17-40

csebasti wrote:
aznkid.com wrote:

they always recommend the more expensive stuff

Dec 17, 2004 at 07:02 PM

BeeMan458
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · 16-35 vs 17-40

Now I just need to decide whether I want to drop the cash on it now, or go with the 18-55 for now, and get the 17-40 later.

I'll try to help you with that decision if you have the monies avaiable.

Let's see, which do I want to get

Do I want to get the Coke bottle bottom or do I want to get the good stuff

I hope my above helped clarify what my feeling are on that choice

Wishing you well as the 17-40 is a darn fine piece of engineered glass and technically speaking, there's nothing wrong with it..

Dec 17, 2004 at 07:31 PM

BrianP
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · 16-35 vs 17-40

It really comes down to how you will use it. One of the only real mistakes that I made when buying lenses throughout the years was getting a slower wide angle. When I first bought it, I thought I will be at f/8, f/11 or f/16 for most of my shots, so why should I spend the extra money. I was wrong. I was inside frequently, and constantly frustrated with the slower wide angle lens. I sold the lens, and I picked up a 16-35 f/2.8L. I agree that f/2.8 can feel slow at times, but it also has the possibility of making all of the difference in the world, and it frequently does for me. I am sure the 17-40 f/4L is a very nice lens. If I really did shoot just landscapes where I was either on a tripod or had enough light, I would get it. For the way that I shoot, I would be extremely frustrated by the 17-40 f/4L.

Dec 17, 2004 at 07:34 PM

john s.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · 16-35 vs 17-40

Here's a direct comparison:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

You have some other choices on a 20d. The 17-85 IS is a good single-lens solution. The 10-22 EF-S gives you true ultrawide.

Dec 17, 2004 at 08:58 PM

thepiecesfit
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #24 · 16-35 vs 17-40

17-40 is THE perfect outdoor lens, contrast , color and pretty sharp... Indoor is where it is weak , at least for me, in terms of focusing indoors, it has some issues where soft images are a result. Outdoors all my images are in perfect focus, probably due to the f4 to focus

here is a sample... no editing except for some sharpening.. straight out of ACR

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Dec 18, 2004 at 01:46 AM

lovcom
Offline
Account Locked

p.1 #25 · 16-35 vs 17-40

I used the 17-40 F4 for several months and loved it. No focus issues, no problems aside from the normal and expected barreling of a WA lens. And like someone already wrote, if you use it the 17-40 F4 outside during good light, F4 is more then fast enough. And for landscapes, you're probably going to use F8 or smaller anyways.

However it was not so good indoors, even with a flash it was just so-so. For my indoor shots (gyms, concerts, auditoriums, large rooms) I needed one extra stop of light, so I eBayed the 17-40 away and replaced it with the 16-35 F2.8.

As for color rendition, contrast, and sharpness? The 16-35 definitely provides better color and contrast, but as for sharpness, the 17-40 is a tad bit better in this area, but not by much.

The build quality of the 17-40 and 16-35 are excellent, and are equal in this area. And in fact, I believe that no 3rd party lens maker makes anything to compete with the build of a Canon L lens.

I would get the 17-40 and save big money over the 16-35 UNLESS you need the extra stop of light (F4 vs F2.8), and/or the extra mm of wide-angle (not a big diff). At about twice the price of the 17-40 F4, my 16-35 F2.8 provides the performance I would require and is worth it to me. Still, of all you use the WA for is landscapes then the 16-35 would be overkill financially.

You should know however that the 24-70mm L F2.8 provides better noticeable color, contrast, and sharpness then both the 17-40 and 16-35, but of course on a 1.6 or 1.3 crop DSLR the 24-70 may not often be wide enough for most of us.

Dec 18, 2004 at 02:26 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end