Question: Keep my 17-40 f/4L or trade for 16-35 f/2.8L II + boot
/forum/topic/1068128/0

1
       2       end

Wobble
Registered: Nov 30, 2011
Total Posts: 739
Country: United States

I have a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM and looking at trading for a Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. It will be used on a Canon 7D to mostly shoot interior shots of homes to post on the internet on real estate multiple listing services, my web site, and for flyers. Will I benefit from the 16-35 (or do I loose too much depth of field or other issues)? How much boot is fair? Or, should I just stay put?

Jim



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4730
Country: United States

Well youll gain 1mm on the wide end and a stop faster. Since you are using a crop sensor, maybe consider something wider like a 10-22 canon. If the 17-40 is already wide enough for you, the 16-35 gets you one more stop and thats about it.



Wobble
Registered: Nov 30, 2011
Total Posts: 739
Country: United States

Thanks for the input. I had not considered the 10-22.



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4730
Country: United States

Wobble wrote:
Thanks for the input. I had not considered the 10-22.


No problem, just be aware that if you ever move up to a full-frame camera (5D, 1Ds3, etc), the 10-22 won't work with it (it's an EF-S lens). Apologies if you already know this



EB-1
Registered: Jan 09, 2003
Total Posts: 23209
Country: United States

cputeq wrote:
Well youll gain 1mm on the wide end and a stop faster. Since you are using a crop sensor, maybe consider something wider like a 10-22 canon. If the 17-40 is already wide enough for you, the 16-35 gets you one more stop and thats about it.


+1. You will probably want to use a small aperture anyway for DOF. 10-22 + 17-55 IS are a common combination for EF-S. For serious architecture use FF bodies and TSE lenses.

EBH



Wobble
Registered: Nov 30, 2011
Total Posts: 739
Country: United States

Great catch on the 10-22 with a FF body!!! I like the idea of being to use lenses I already own when I move up to FF.

Jim



colinm
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Total Posts: 1983
Country: United States

+1 to all the above. The 16-35 has some minor image quality advantages (namely flare control), but you're unlikely to encounter them for your usage.



Ian.Dobinson
Registered: Feb 18, 2007
Total Posts: 12068
Country: United Kingdom

Wobble wrote:
Great catch on the 10-22 with a FF body!!! I like the idea of being to use lenses I already own when I move up to FF.

Jim



this is a flawed way of thinking.
you will end up with a lens which has a totaly different FOV .
on your 7D the 16-35 acts as a wide 25-55 zoom but on a FF body its an UWA (your only overlap is 10mm) .
If you buy decent lens that suits your needs now then if you do Upgrade to FF (and not everyone needs to) then you will be able to sell that lens at very little loss.

if your using a 17-40 now and want a stop faster on a crop the how about the 17-55 IS ? it will be in between what you sell the 17-40 for and what you buy a 16-35 for . buy used and that cost reduces a little bit more



Wobble
Registered: Nov 30, 2011
Total Posts: 739
Country: United States

Good food for thought, Ian, and I really appreciate your ideas!!!



Beni
Registered: May 31, 2005
Total Posts: 8604
Country: United Kingdom

My 16-35LII while better in every other way is not as good in the corners as my 17-40's were. As you're stopping down anyway...



gdanmitchell
Registered: Jun 28, 2009
Total Posts: 9832
Country: United States

Wobble wrote:
I have a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM and looking at trading for a Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. It will be used on a Canon 7D to mostly shoot interior shots of homes to post on the internet on real estate multiple listing services, my web site, and for flyers. Will I benefit from the 16-35 (or do I loose too much depth of field or other issues)? How much boot is fair? Or, should I just stay put?

Jim


If you are shooting from the tripod, you won't gain much at all. The f/2.8 aperture isn't likely to mean much since you are probably shooting at smaller apertures to get larger DOF. The extra mm at the wide end could occasionally be useful, but you also lose 5mm at the longer end.

If I were in your shoes and thinking about a different lens than the 17-40 on your camera, it would not be the 16-35. Instead, I would be looking seriously at the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It produces image quality as good as (or arguably better than, on crop) the other two lenses, it has both IS and the larger f/2.8 aperture, it has a larger focal length range.

By the, every lens has the same DOF at whatever aperture you use on your camera. You'll get the same DOF at f/8 at, say, 30mm on any of these cameras.

Bottom line: With your camera, and if you shoot from the tripod... I'd stay put unless you have identified some specific way in which your current lens is letting you down in the work you do. Or, second choice, I would consider the EFS lens first.

Dan



Ian.Dobinson
Registered: Feb 18, 2007
Total Posts: 12068
Country: United Kingdom

Infact for the cost of a 16-35 you could pick up a 17-55is and either a tokina 11-16 or sigma 8-16 (depending if very wide or faster fstop is the desire) .



Fr3d
Registered: Nov 29, 2008
Total Posts: 292
Country: Germany

Usually real estate does not require fast lenses. Only get the 16-35 II if the improvement in sharpness
over the 17-40 is worth it to you.



Wobble
Registered: Nov 30, 2011
Total Posts: 739
Country: United States

I really appreciate all of the quick replies. I am new to DSLR and knowing that ya'll are out there ready to answer my rookie questions really makes me happy that I found FM.

Jim



Gunzorro
Registered: Aug 28, 2010
Total Posts: 6838
Country: United States

I think we are looking at two different scenarios.

One, on a crop body, it is overkill to use full coverage lenses -- unless the plan is to go FF in the near future. Arguing merits of the 17-40L against the 16-35L II for crop are similarly pointless and the 1mm difference is inconsequential, as is the image quality since both crop to the best part of the image circle.

Two, is the FF scenario. Here the benefits of the 16-35L II are far greater than the benefits of the 17-40L (provided you have an average/good copy of each). The 16-35 has better overall IQ, less vignetting, less edge softness, faster aperture -- and that important 1mm, which is very noticebable in head-to-head comparisons. Still, the 17-40 is a good lens, but the 16-35 is in a differernt realm.

If you are keeping the crop sensor for very long, I like the advice you are getting to buy a 10-22 -- it is an excellent lens, almost equal to the 16-35L II in all things but aperture. But if you are going to FF soon, wait until then and buy the 16-35L II and sell off the 17-40L and buy another longer lens to cover focal lengths above 35/40mm.

I'm just trying to make the point that from my experience with these two lenses and the majority of tests I've read, the 16-35 is the superior lens. If not, something is wrong with the sample and needs to be sent to Canon to remedy.



Wobble
Registered: Nov 30, 2011
Total Posts: 739
Country: United States

Since I do not plan to move to the FF any time soon, I think I keep the 17-40 for now and see how it does for me. From what is being said, i don't think i can justify the additional $$ to get into the 16-35 for what I am currently doing. If I start shooting a lot of low light scenes, then maybe I bite the bullet...

I am now shopping for a decent tripod, head, quick release fittings, grip, and a flash. Any and all suggestions are welcome.



scalesusa
Registered: Sep 02, 2008
Total Posts: 2487
Country: United States

With the price of the 5D MK II dropping, you might be better to trade up to the FF body. You will gain a stop in high ISO noise, and 17mm will be much wider than it is on a crop.

Your cash outlay will be about the same, and even your spare batteries will work.



gdanmitchell
Registered: Jun 28, 2009
Total Posts: 9832
Country: United States

Gunzorro wrote:
Two, is the FF scenario. Here the benefits of the 16-35L II are far greater than the benefits of the 17-40L (provided you have an average/good copy of each). The 16-35 has better overall IQ, less vignetting, less edge softness, faster aperture -- and that important 1mm, which is very noticebable in head-to-head comparisons. Still, the 17-40 is a good lens, but the 16-35 is in a differernt realm.


It isn't that simple at all.

Neither lens (17-40 or 16-35) is intrinsically better than the other in an overall way. Unless you subscribe to the "if it is bigger and more expensive, it must be better" school of lens acquisition, the choice is about matching the lens to your photography, no more and no less.

The 16-35 f/2.8L II is an excellent lens. It provides one additional stop compared to the 17-40 and it is less prone (though not immune) to corner softness wide open. It is a larger, heavier, and more expensive lens. Optically, the primary improvement of the II version was at f/2.8 - from all reports it isn't significantly different at other apertures. The 16-35 uses a slightly larger and non-standard 82mm diameter filter thread, so you'll need to update your filter collection in most cases. If you need a large aperture ultra-wide lens for hand held, low light shooting on full frame, this is great choice.

The 17-40mm f/4L is an excellent lens. It provides a slightly larger focal length range. Stopped down a bit it is an excellent performer - as good as or (insignificantly) better than the 16-35 at smaller apertures. It is also regarded as being a bit more resistant to flare. It is a bit smaller/lighter - not significant on its own, but when carrying a pack full of lenses it makes a contribution. The 17-40 uses the same 77mm filter threads that are found on a good number of the other popular L zooms. If your primary need for an ultra wide angle lens for shooting subjects like landscape, architecture, and similar from a tripod, then this is a great choice.

There are those among us who could choose to own the 16-35 and who would if we believed it offered advantages in our photography. For us cost is not the issue. Performance for the kinds of photography we do is. One photographer might be better served by the 16-35, while another equally good photographer doing a different sort of work might be better served by the 17-40.

Neither is in a "different realm" and you cannot differentiate among photographs made with the two lenses by looking at them.

Dan



PetKal
Registered: Sep 06, 2007
Total Posts: 25268
Country: Canada

I've owned two 17-40Ls (both of them cherry picked), 20-35L, 16-35L MkI and now 16-35L MkII.

I liked my 16-35L MkI better than my 17-40Ls.
However, the IQ of 16-35L MkII is better than any of them......sharper in the center as well as periphery, starting with f/2.8, and at all FLs.



Gunzorro
Registered: Aug 28, 2010
Total Posts: 6838
Country: United States

Well, Dan, I stepped up an bought the 82mm filters.

Some of us, have owned both lenses at the same time and took the time to do an extensive series of photograpsh the same subjects with both lenses, at various apertures on a tripod, then compared the images A-B on the computer at 100%, and were able to come to conclusions as to which produced better images. Perhaps you were not able to do so.

I agree with PetKal. I've owned the FD 20-35L and the EF 17-35L previously, as well as the 17-40 and then the 16-35II, and each has been an improvement optically. To argue otherwise makes your opinion seem foolish.

Although I liked my 17-40 very much, I sold it following the results of the comparisons, as it was redundant with the 16-35.

I will say again that for crop sensor, the OP wouldn't really notice any practical difference other than the one stop wide open, so it is a good idea for him to stay with the 17-40L.



1
       2       end