Hi, I have a 17-40L and for quite a while I've been trying to talk myself into getting the 16-35L ll. I've read up a lot on the lens and still can't decide if its worth the extra money. I want it mainly for landscapes and don't use the 2.8 very much anyway, but is the image quality worth it ? Maybe you people who have used both could help here.
Thanks for your time, Mike
Only if 2.8 is important to you. I have a sharp copy of the 16-35 f/2.8 mkI and to me I really like it. Since I do shooting in low light conditions it is worth it. The 17-40 is an extremely good and sharp lens from what I saw of a friends copy and from what I have read.
Again the 2.8 is the biggie the extra 1 mm can be noticed when shooting side by side but it's not that much IMO.
I have had both the Mark I and Mark II versions of the 16-35 as well as the 17-40, and IMO, the contrast and color of the 16-35 is much better. It gives the images a very rich "3D" look. Also, that extra stop is a lot...and especially on a FF camera, that extra 1mm is more than you think for FOV, especially if you are shooting indoors.
Is it worth it for you? I couldn't say. I suggest you try one and see.
Here;s what I don't get: you mainly use it for landscapes. Now, I'm no landscape artist, but I can imagine that most of the time a tripod is being used. So who cares if you're at 1/15 or 1/4 second?? Besides, aren't landscapes usually shot stopped down, to A] get the best out of the lens, and B] get a DOF from front to back?
I struggled with this same decision myself. Unlike you though I have not shot with a 17-40. The 17-40 was suggested to me early on, and by all accounts it seems to be an excellent lens. However, that extra mm is a considerable difference even on a crop body (XTi). I opted to go with the 16-35 for the following reasons:
1. I really like doing landscapes and wanted that extra mm
2. I know that I will eventually go to full frame - so the 10-22, 17-55s etc were ruled out
3. I also knew that I would not want to say ever "I wish I had that extra stop!" - I do occasionally find myself saying that about my 70-200 f4L (not often, but occasionally).
4. The f4L was the fastest lens in my bag and I wanted one that was faster in the times I needed it
I went to a night-time farmer's market the other night and there was no f4 lens on the planet that would have sufficed - and I was in fact glad to have the extra stop. I like my lenses to be able to serve many purposes where possible as I am on a limited budget - and the versatility of it is quite surprising - much of it because of that extra stop. Of course only you can tell if it is really worth the extra money. You might consider renting a 16-35 to compare the difference.
Marcel VanEerd wrote:
Here;s what I don't get: you mainly use it for landscapes. Now, I'm no landscape artist, but I can imagine that most of the time a tripod is being used. So who cares if you're at 1/15 or 1/4 second?? Besides, aren't landscapes usually shot stopped down, to A] get the best out of the lens, and B] get a DOF from front to back?
The OP also asked in regards to image quality - not just being able to stop down. I haven't used the 17-40 so I cannot compare the difference but I'm sure someone else here has. Like I said - I don't want to say "I wish I had an extra stop!" in the times that I need it. I don't have to use the f2.8 (in fact I rarely have as I have a landscape preference also) - but I have been glad to have it when I needed it.
Yes, the 16-35L MkII is one great lens, judging by my own copy, better than my good 17-40L.
Although I am rather tight with my gear budget, it's worth the extra money to me because of the gain of one stop as well as in IQ.
The IQ at 16mm at f/2.8 and stopped down is so "primelike" that I couldn't possibly justify buying the 14L MkII. What more can I say ?
I recently "upgraded" from the 17-40 to the 16-35 II. The 17-40 is a nice lens and a relative bargain. I was very happy with mine. It also conveniently used a common filter size. The 16-35 II uses a 82mm filter which is not so common. So you probably won't already have one in your bag. They are also relatively expensive compared to 77mm filters. In comparing the two lenses I found the 16-35 II to be slightly sharper. But, this might vary from lens to lens. Ultimately, only you can decide if the 16-35 II is worth the money to you.
The filters are a killer. I wanted the ability to stack filters if necessary, which means you have to get the Kaesemann version of B+W filters for example - to the tune of $195. OUCH! That brings up another reason to go with the 16-35 - it is sealed against dust and moisture with a filter, whereas I believe the 17-40 is weather 'resistant', which I believe is different (hopefully one of the gearheads will correct me if my interpretation is wrong!). It may not make a difference for your shooting conditions - but again, is probably one of those things that you don't want to wish you had.
I have had all five versions of this lens, 20-35 2.8L, 17-35 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 17-40 4L and now i own the 16-35 2.8LII.
I have noticed a big improvement from the 20-35/17-35 to the new 16-35 mkI version.
The 17-40 version is an absolutely excellent lens. Personally I think it is better than the 16-35 mkI.
The MkII version of the 16-35 is slightly better in contrast and colour than the 17-40L but doesn't handle flare as good, although it is very very good compared to the makI version.
Also sharpness wise, the mkII is spot on.
If you can do without 2.8, the 17-40 is a no brainer, best value "L" lens in my opinion. An excellent landscapers lens.
Peter
Mike M. Kraus wrote:
Hi, I have a 17-40L and for quite a while I've been trying to talk myself into getting the 16-35L ll. I've read up a lot on the lens and still can't decide if its worth the extra money. I want it mainly for landscapes and don't use the 2.8 very much anyway, but is the image quality worth it ? Maybe you people who have used both could help here.
Thanks for your time, Mike
Keep 17-40 - save some cash and buy used 35L - you will be more than happy please note: (17-40 + 35L = 2x 16-35L)
You guys are great. Thanks ! Sometimes you want something just because you WANT it. But... on a limited gear budget your just " chicken " to sqeeze the trigger. So far I've been the " big chicken " . But next week......... ??
I have both. Neither are "impressive". The 16-35 is somewhat shaper wide open down to F5.6. Beyond that, not much difference for sharpness. The vignette is somewhat less on the 16-35. I have a bunch of comparison images of a brick wall which illustrates this. The comparison is from F2.8 to F11.
PetKal wrote:
Yes, the 16-35L MkII is one great lens, judging by my own copy, better than my good 17-40L.
Although I am rather tight with my gear budget, it's worth the extra money to me because of the gain of one stop as well as in IQ.
The IQ at 16mm at f/2.8 and stopped down is so "primelike" that I couldn't possibly justify buying the 14L MkII. What more can I say ?
Edited by PetKal on Sep 07, 2008 at 07:50 PM GMT
Yes, and of course, the 14mm f/2.8L is a very pedestrian lens. I have the Mk I version and its OK. That's a sad commentary on what is a very pricey lens. Of course, when you need that 2mm, you need it.
Judging by your limited posts in this thread, I'm going to say it's not worth $800 to you.
Buy a 24L or 35L with that $800, use some sneaker zoom, and voila.
The 16-35 mkII is a better lens, but the limited color and contrast advantages--and they are just that, limited--can easily be compensated in post. The flare, filter size, and $800 saved could be seen as an offset.
People love the f/2.8, but I've noticed that those same people (here and on other forums) rarely ever shoot at f/2.8. They give samples of pictures at f/5.6, f/8, f/11, or even smaller.
Save your money and purchase a prime, a Gitzo tripod, or a 580EX II w/ diffuser.
