Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era |
surf monkey wrote:
From what I\'ve tested, read about and heard, the lenses are quite similar in performance.
The big difference besides the wider FL and extra stop is the size.
The 16-35 is not only longer and heavier, but it has an 82mm filter thread.
In general, the small differences are:
1) The 16-35vII is a bit \"better\" on the wide end and the 17-40 is a bit better on the long end.
2) Generally the 16-35 has better corner resolution.
3) The 16-35 has slightly less distortion on the wide end, which is quite pronounced on both.
4) The 16-35 has less CA and vignetting.
I\'ll disagree with #1
#2 is true at f/2.8 and f/4, but not really the case at smaller apertures where the 17-40 performs very well. (This goes back to the point about, to generalize, the 17-40 being a great landscape lens and the 16-35 being a great handheld, low-light lens.) The 17-40 seems to marginally outresolve the 16-35 in the center of the frame, though perhaps not in a way that most would find significant.
#3 Basically, both ultra wide zooms deal with certain kinds of \"distortion\" at the wide end, though you could be thinking of a range of different things, some of which can be corrected in post.
#4 is related to #2 and really only applies at the f/2.8 and f/4 apertures.
The 17-40 is less prone to flare.
As I always write, both are fine lenses. Neither is perfect - what lens is? Either one could be the \"best\" choice for a particular photographer depending upon his/her needs and approach to photography. And if you shoot a cropped sensor body, there are better options than either of these - in particular the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.