Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 end

Archive 2021 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Didi88
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Hi. Has anyone tried both of them? I wonder if there's a big difference in sharpness when stopped down to f8-11.

I don't have intention to use the lens wide open much. So, is the newer lens worth the extra cost?

I have seen many photo samples of 17-40. Some of them look nice, and some of them look a bit mushy, even in the mid frame.

Jan 12, 2021 at 07:35 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

I've owned most of the ultra-wide to normal Canon lenses (zooms and primes), including these. Both are very sharp in the central regions at all apertures. At f/8 and infinity, or near-infinity, the 17-40/4L shows a noticeable reduction in sharpness towards the edges and corners. The 16-35/4L IS is sharp right to the edges, and is on par with lenses like Canon T/S unshifted (17mm, 24mm II), and Zeiss ZE (18/2.5, 21/2.8, 25/2, 35/2).

Long story, short; if you can afford it, get the 16-35/4L IS. The best low budget, ultra-wide solution is probably the Tokina AT-X 17/3.5 AF Pro (not the SD version). You'll also find the IS to be very handy in low light. I sold my 16-35/2.8 L II because the f/4 IS provided better images for shooting events in low light (handheld) than the f/2.8.

Here's links to far too many, old comparison posts that include most of the usual suspects. The focus is on ultra- and very-wide angles, as this usually represents the biggest challenge for the optics, and it's where other lenses don't overlap (e.g. the excellent EF 24-70/4L IS).

...16mm 17mm 18mm

EF 16-35/4L IS test images
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1313373/0&year=2014#12531288

16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking,
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1423159/0#13499481

[recommendations, 18/3.5 ZE oe OM 18/3.5 rather than 18/4 CY]
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1428091/0#13541953

Is there any alt 28mm or 24mm lens that is sharp from corner to corner [17-40/4L and alts at 17mm & 20mm],
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1510860/2#14202153

Lens tests, 17mm/18mm [2014-01-15]
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1267345/0&year=2014#12071912

Fred on focusing TS-E 17
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1267345/2&year=2014#12075780

[u-wide for X Pro-1] Fuji X-Pro1 - Help to decide wich 3 alt lenses
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1262031/0#12018496

Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 Question
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1261986/0#12017838

TSE 17mm: acceptable performance?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1229794/0#11705691

ZE18/3.5 - TS-E 17/4L
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1213602/1#11566782

Replacement for 17-40L [links to all below]
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1205010/1#11486857

Tokina 17mm 3.5
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1124317/ 0#10736542

Canon 17-40 vs Oly 21mm f/3.5?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/986355

17mm tests 17-40L vs AT-X
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/957560/0&year=2010#9061255

17mm f/3.5 Primes: Are they all the same?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/953918/

Tamron vs. Tokina 17/3.5 UWA testing
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/932789/0

...20mm 21mm

Which swa for my 5dii - oly21, voigt 20 or zeiss 21?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1205970/

Olympus OM 21/3.5 or Voigtlander Skopar 20/3.5-which one ...
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/990867

Canon 17-40 vs Oly 21mm f/3.5? https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/986355

Olympus OM 21mm lenses. Whats the deal?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/920454

Olympus 21 vs. Zeiss 21
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/889096

Archive 2010 · Initial impression CV 20/3.5 EF
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/861302/0&year=2010#8063547

ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834311

Zeiss 21mm ZE vs. Nikon 14-`
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/830416

Voigtlander Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL-II
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/832874

Jan 12, 2021 at 07:59 AM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

The 16-35/4 IS is better than the 17-40 at all apertures and especially in the edges and corners. It is also better than the 16-35/2.8 and 16-35/2.8 II. You have to get the f/2.8 III version to be comparable to the f/4 IS. And yes, I have 4 EF 16-35 lenses, but the f/4 IS is the one I use.

EBH

Jan 12, 2021 at 08:02 AM

Didi88
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Thank you for the answers. So, 17-40 never comes near the 16-35 f4, even stopped down? Also, 17-40 is not sharp for close focusing? So, when shooting landscapes, object in the front can never be sharp enough?

Currently I don't have money to buy 16-35 f4, but it seems it's worth saving money and waiting, rather than purchasing 17-40 now. I could afford tokina 16-28 now, but I want to use filters, so that one is out of consideration.

I was also considering buying again an used 50d with 10-18mm. I had it before, and I was happy with it. It would be even cheaper than 17-40. Also, I could use cheaper filters with that combo. But I don't like the idea of carrying two cameras with me all the time.

Jan 12, 2021 at 08:22 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Didi88 wrote:
...I don't like the idea of carrying two cameras with me all the time.

I don't like the idea of carrying fewer than two cameras with me.

Jan 12, 2021 at 08:31 AM

Didi88
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

jcolwell wrote:
I don't like the idea of carrying fewer than two cameras with me.

Weight is not a problem, but I think there's no room in my backpack for another camera. Only for one more medium sized lens.

Jan 12, 2021 at 08:42 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

If you're looking for a budget option, the new version of the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 is outstanding. It with the adapter is smaller than the 16-35/4L by itself. It's also only $600 and is similar optically. Very sharp to the edges and corners throughout the range, and especially at the wide end. Only real downside is the focus motor moves the focus ring during AF, but otherwise it's a great optic for a budget price. It even holds up extremely well adapted to my A7R IV at 60MP, so it's got the resolution chops. Good flare control as well.

Jan 12, 2021 at 09:51 AM

Didi88
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Yeah, I was looking that one. It would be a great budget option. The problem is, I'm buying only second hand gear. And it seems nobody uses tamron in my country. There's no second hand offer of tamron lenses on the market. I could buy it new, but that would be even more expensive than second hand 16-35mm.

Jan 12, 2021 at 09:59 AM

brad-man
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

I have both lenses. The only reason to get the 17-40 is money and size. Here is what appears to be a rarely used copy for $670 on ebay. Money well spent:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/For-Sale-my-Pristine-Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4L-Is-USM-Lens-Black/254832297584?epid=12033506854&hash=item3b55304670:g:4BkAAOSwjkxf~McT

Jan 12, 2021 at 10:05 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

I've used both lenses extensively.

I shot with the 17-40mm f/4 for a long time, and we still own my old copy. I made a ton of photographs with the thing — almost entirely landscapes. As mentioned above, at "typical landscape apertures" in the f/8-f/16 range it can perform pretty well. It is very sharp in the center, and at those apertures it is sharp enough in the corners. (Many, but not all, of the examples suggesting extreme image problems in the corners are demonstrating instead DOF issues and the typical image distortion of ultra wide lenses.)

If cost is a limiting factor for you, you'll mostly by photographing at moderate to small apertures, and you aren't going to push the outer boundaries of print size... the 17-40 can be a good solution. Because it has been out so long, you can often find extremely good prices on used copies.

The 16-35mm f/4L IS is in a different class. As others have pointed out, its image quality is very consistent across the frame and into the corners, even at the maximum f/4 aperture. When you consider Canon's ability to produce lenses of specific types, this lens is an example of them making arguably the best lens in its class.

If cost is not the limiting factor, and especially if are going to be making large reproductions of your photographs, the 16-35mm f/4 is a considerably better lens and worth the cost.

Dan

Jan 12, 2021 at 10:38 AM

Didi88
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Thanks Dan. It seems I need to think about it for some time. If I could, I would rent a 17-40 to see if it can satisfy my needs. But there's no lens rental service in my area.

Jan 12, 2021 at 10:53 AM

Sy Sez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

The 17-40 F4 was a first rate lens in it's day, as was the EOS 5D Camera in it's day, and both are still capable of producing quality images, but as time marches on so do factual improvements.

Jan 12, 2021 at 11:07 AM

grog13
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

I assumed you're talking about use on full frame, but then you mentioned a 50d. I don't have experience with the 16-35s, but I can say that, on a crop frame, the 17-40 is stellar. So if that's your intended use (crop frame at smallish apertures), you may not see your money's worth of difference between any of the mentioned lenses.

Jan 12, 2021 at 12:40 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

The 17-40L was my uwa for about 5 years. I gave it to my brother when I got higher mpx (1st a7r and then 5dsr) and TS17.Mine was slightly decentred as compared to ts17 (weaker on one side).

The 17-40L is cheap, very light and good >=20mm/f8. For backpacking, its a lens that can do everything.

It is pretty good at f11 at 17mm with large barrel (~4%) [but this is correctable]. So it is very usable for landscape even at 17mm.

So if you think of it as a good light lens 20-40mm that requires f11 to be acceptable at 17mm - you will be happy with it. And you will be happy with its price and weight.

If you want it for wide open work at 17mm or for IS in dim light- you will not be happy.

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1
noting that the test was done on 21mpx camera and 3000/2600 lines at 17mm/f11 is based on maximum of about 3800 for a really good lens. Thus it will deliver resolution near 4000 for centre and edge at f11/17mm on 5dsr or R5 which is really good..

I would reccomend this lens to someone who is landscape orientated and on a small budget and wants a very versatile zoom. There are better lens but there are no lighter/smaller lens at this price point (you can get a good one 2nd hand for $500). I considered rebuying this lens for backpacking as my only lens but rejected it for lack of Shift (like my Laowa 15 or TS17).

Edited on Jan 12, 2021 at 01:56 PM · View previous versions

Jan 12, 2021 at 01:10 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

grog13 wrote:
I assumed you're talking about use on full frame, but then you mentioned a 50d. I don't have experience with the 16-35s, but I can say that, on a crop frame, the 17-40 is stellar. So if that's your intended use (crop frame at smallish apertures), you may not see your money's worth of difference between any of the mentioned lenses.

Reading these posts, among other things, I'm wondering if the 17-40 is similar to the 17-35 Sigma I used to use. Especially after reading your post. I was really happy with it on aps. On FF it was OK, seemed pretty good at 20mm so maybe one of the 17-21mm range not bad on the 17-40, use as needed?

The op thinking about getting crop body + 10-18, not sure about prices since covid (heard they've gone up) or in Croatia but I had well under $500 in SL2 + 18-55 STM + 55-250 STM. And I've seen 10-18 for about $150 or so on B&S. So I'm not sure about recommending crop for landscape, but it is potentially possible to get entire aps kit for about the price of 16-35! I'd probably go for at least 18mp though.

Op, you might just look through jcolwell's post and see if you can find a less expensive uwa. I'd be pretty comfortable with a 17-21mm, I think, I might rather have a zoom and 16-17mm but I used to be happy using 21 & 35. The 17 Tamron adaptall-2 apparently has moutache distortion but is apparently good otherwise and used to be popular on here. 17 Tokina I think, too. Not necessarily hard to find inexpensive 28mm and maybe even 24mm. Have you tried Philip reeve''s site? Also you could probably use the 17-40 for awhile and sell it for not much loss, if the market stays the same, assuming you kept it in about the same condition.

Jan 12, 2021 at 01:13 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Didi88 wrote:
Thanks Dan. It seems I need to think about it for some time. If I could, I would rent a 17-40 to see if it can satisfy my needs. But there's no lens rental service in my area.

One option would be to buy the thing and shoot it for a while, then decide if it is good enough. Given the relatively low cost of the lens, you could probably resell it for close to what you paid for it. (Though used EF lens prices will continue to decline, especially now that the new thing is the RF lenses.)

You could rent, though I suspect that renting long enough to get a full sense of what the lens can and cannot do may not provide much cost advantage over the purchase (used), try, and potentially resell option.

If cost is your main driver here, then I think the 17-40mm could be an OK option. But if you are in a position to be able to afford the 16-35mm f/4 then the odds are that you would be happier with it.

Jan 12, 2021 at 01:40 PM

CyberDyne
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

I also had the 17-40mm for years, (2003-2016) and loved it. It was my first L lens, that I decided it was best to just buy it once and not futz around testing and upgrading, so for me at the time it was a big expenditure.

It performed admirably. I was shooting it on crop sensors, APS-C and 1.3X APS-H with my 1D bodies, and on those sensors the worst part of the edges was not in use. This might be part of why when I read people dissing it I get confused

It was also practically glued to my IR converted EOS D60.

I do now own the 16-35mm f/4L IS,. but I have a VAST library of images taken with the 17-40mm and I don't feel that I was missing anything when I look at those images. Is the 16-35mm sharper with less distortion, Sure, but so is everything.

Jan 12, 2021 at 01:52 PM

dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Didi88 wrote:
Thank you for the answers. So, 17-40 never comes near the 16-35 f4, even stopped down?

I used the 17-40L for some years before I bought the 16-35 f4 IS

The 17-40L is not a bad lens, at the right apertures it does well and isn't especially weak in any areas but the 16-35 IS is just a bit better. For modest enlargements you might not see much difference.

The main improvements in the 16-35 IS are lens contrast and the corner performance, but with the DLO function in DPP the 17-40 files come up pretty well.

The IS is very useful and if you can stretch to it I'd buy the f4 IS

Jan 12, 2021 at 01:53 PM

Rivermist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Beyond the quality and sharpness, there is IS. With the increased resolution of sensors, even wide-angle lenses will register movement at lower exposure speeds, especially with DSLRs and their mirror movements. The extra cost (but actually very marginal increase in weight (about 100g) and bulk (15mm longer)) is also associated with the IS, and it is worth every penny. I have switched to RF but I still have the EF 16-35 IS with adaptor, waiting for Canon to produce an RF equivalent that is equally brilliant.

Jan 12, 2021 at 01:56 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

dhphoto wrote:
I used the 17-40L for some years before I bought the 16-35 f4 IS

The 17-40L is not a bad lens, at the right apertures it does well and isn't especially weak in any areas but the 16-35 IS is just a bit better. For modest enlargements you might not see much difference.

The main improvements in the 16-35 IS are lens contrast and the corner performance, but with the DLO function in DPP the 17-40 files come up pretty well.

The IS is very useful and if you can stretch to it I'd buy the f4 IS

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1 pretty close to 17-40 (with higher barrel) at 16mm f11. And 200grams more weight. So I agree that 16-35f4 is better but not much for landscape if you don't mind f11. And if you are just landscape - IS is not important on tripod.

Edited on Jan 12, 2021 at 03:45 PM · View previous versions

Jan 12, 2021 at 01:59 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

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