p.1 #1 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
I am looking for a good landscape, interiors & general use lens. Something versatile to carry around when hiking and travelling.
Camera EOS 5D MIV
Any expert advise?
Originally I was considering the EF 16-35 f/2.8 MII, but the more I read the more confusing it gets.
If looking at used lenses prices, the 16-35 f/4 sells for slightly more than the EF 16-35 f2.8 M II.
Beside the differences in aperture and IS, are there any major difference in IQ?
How the EF 17-40 f/4L would compare with either of the above options?
p.1 #2 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
I'd avoid the 17-40L at this point. It's good in the center, but the edges and corners are pretty terrible on modern cameras.
If you absolutely need the aperture, the f/2.8L lenses are worth a look, but for the most part, I'd be looking at the 16-35/4L and the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4. The Tamron has the advantage of being a stop faster at the wide end, and faster throughout the range until 32mm when if finally gets to f/4.
Both of those lenses are essentially equal in image quality, and both are excellent. If you need a silent focus motor, or need the extra mm of width, go for the 16-35mm, otherwise save some money and go for the Tamron. Both of those lenses are better optically than the other two on your list.
p.1 #3 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
Thanks for the advise!
Jman13 wrote:
I'd avoid the 17-40L at this point. It's good in the center, but the edges and corners are pretty terrible on modern cameras.
If you absolutely need the aperture, the f/2.8L lenses are worth a look, but for the most part, I'd be looking at the 16-35/4L and the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4. The Tamron has the advantage of being a stop faster at the wide end, and faster throughout the range until 32mm when if finally gets to f/4.
Both of those lenses are essentially equal in image quality, and both are excellent. If you need a silent focus motor, or need the extra mm of width, go for the 16-35mm, otherwise save some money and go for the Tamron. Both of those lenses are better optically than the other two on your list. ...Show more →
p.1 #4 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
MagnusPrimus wrote:
I am looking for a good landscape, interiors & general use lens. Something versatile to carry around when hiking and travelling.
Camera EOS 5D MIV
Any expert advise?
Originally I was considering the EF 16-35 f/2.8 MII, but the more I read the more confusing it gets.
If looking at used lenses prices, the 16-35 f/4 sells for slightly more than the EF 16-35 f2.8 M II.
Beside the differences in aperture and IS, are there any major difference in IQ?
How the EF 17-40 f/4L would compare with either of the above options?
Thanks!
Serge
I have used (and still own) two of those lenses, the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 17-40mm f/4L. I have not owned the 16-35mm f/2.8L, though I have researched it and know a fair amount about it.
Let me take on the 17-40mm f/4 first. This isn't a bad lens, but it isn't a great lens either. For moderate to small aperture landscape photography on a full frame camera it is fine, and it is the least expensive of the bunch. You'll hear about corner problems on the lens, but a lot (though perhaps not all) of the complaints can be chalked up to insufficient DOF to bring the close lower corners and far subjects into focus. That's an issue with any wide angle lens. It does lose some corner sharpness wide open though. It is a fine lens if you are on a budget, but otherwise, it would not be my first choice.
The 16-35mm f/4L IS is an outstanding lens. Most people regard it as one of the best zoom lenses that Canon makes, and it is plenty sharp across the frame for serious landscape photography. The IS feature adds a bit of low light capability where you are willing to use a slightly longer exposure. If you can afford it and don't need f/2.8, this is the lens I would recommend. It is in a different class than the 17-40.
the 16-35mm f/2.8 offers... well, one more stop. Optically it isn't much better than the 17-40, though at moderately large apertures it is probably a little better in the corners. It used to be that lens tests often showed the 17-40 to have slightly better center sharpness (but not in a significant way). The lens does not have image-stabilization (which the f/4 does have), so for handheld photography in low light the advantage of the f/2.8 aperture is somewhat cancelled by the loss of several stops of image-stabilized low light performance. It is also not a small lens.
p.1 #5 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
gdanmitchell wrote:
I have used (and still own) two of those lenses, the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 17-40mm f/4L. I have not owned the 16-35mm f/2.8L, though I have researched it and know a fair amount about it.
Let me take on the 17-40mm f/4 first. This isn't a bad lens, but it isn't a great lens either. For moderate to small aperture landscape photography on a full frame camera it is fine, and it is the least expensive of the bunch. You'll hear about corner problems on the lens, but a lot (though perhaps not all) of the complaints can be chalked up to insufficient DOF to bring the close lower corners and far subjects into focus. That's an issue with any wide angle lens. It does lose some corner sharpness wide open though. It is a fine lens if you are on a budget, but otherwise, it would not be my first choice.
The 16-35mm f/4L IS is an outstanding lens. Most people regard it as one of the best zoom lenses that Canon makes, and it is plenty sharp across the frame for serious landscape photography. The IS feature adds a bit of low light capability where you are willing to use a slightly longer exposure. If you can afford it and don't need f/2.8, this is the lens I would recommend. It is in a different class than the 17-40.
the 16-35mm f/2.8 offers... well, one more stop. Optically it isn't much better than the 17-40, though at moderately large apertures it is probably a little better in the corners. It used to be that lens tests often showed the 17-40 to have slightly better center sharpness (but not in a significant way). The lens does not have image-stabilization (which the f/4 does have), so for handheld photography in low light the advantage of the f/2.8 aperture is somewhat cancelled by the loss of several stops of image-stabilized low light performance. It is also not a small lens....Show more →
Thank you for the clear comparison. I think that the 16-35 F/4 IS may be better suitable for what I am looking for and the IS probably works fine for low light interior shots.
p.1 #6 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
Hard to beat that 16-35 f/4 IS. Sharp across the entire frame wide open. Only moderate but fully correctable barrel distortion on the wide end with totally controllable if you desire. Focuses very fast and the IS was great, allowing me to shoot down to 1/3 to 1/2 sec on a monopod in places where tripods were not allowed. The IS more than makes up for the extra stop. Just a great lens all 'round.
p.1 #8 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
MagnusPrimus wrote:
I am looking for a good landscape, interiors & general use lens. Something versatile to carry around when hiking and travelling.
Camera EOS 5D MIV
Any expert advise?
Originally I was considering the EF 16-35 f/2.8 MII, but the more I read the more confusing it gets.
If looking at used lenses prices, the 16-35 f/4 sells for slightly more than the EF 16-35 f2.8 M II.
Beside the differences in aperture and IS, are there any major difference in IQ?
How the EF 17-40 f/4L would compare with either of the above options?
Thanks!
Serge
I have four EF 16-35s, but the one I use regularly is the 16-35/4 IS. Forget the old 17-40, 16-35/2.8 IS, and 16-35/2.8 IS II, none of which are as good towards the periphery. The f/2.8 IS III is very similar to the f/4 IS, but probably not economical now that EF is dying out. The f/4 IS is very good on the 5DsR and obviously the lower resolution 5D IV or R bodies. AF works well with an adapter on the R5. I opted not to replace it with an RF lens.
p.1 #9 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
MagnusPrimus wrote:
If looking at used lenses prices, the 16-35 f/4 sells for slightly more than the EF 16-35 f2.8 M II.
Beside the differences in aperture and IS, are there any major difference in IQ?
That's because the EF 16-35/2.8L II sucked, quite frankly, especially given the price (especially as compared to the 16-35/4L IS, which is an excellent architecture and landscape lens). The EF 16-35/2.8L III finally was a lens worth its price, but if you don't truly need the f/2.8, it's a very expensive upgrade over the f/4. Don't bother with the 17-40 unless you are significantly budget-constrained.
p.1 #10 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
Jeff wrote:
That's because the EF 16-35/2.8L II sucked, quite frankly, especially given the price (especially as compared to the 16-35/4L IS, which is an excellent architecture and landscape lens). The EF 16-35/2.8L III finally was a lens worth its price, but if you don't truly need the f/2.8, it's a very expensive upgrade over the f/4. Don't bother with the 17-40 unless you are significantly budget-constrained.
I have two of the 16-35/2.8 II. Sucked is a bit much. It was better than the 16-35 first version. The f/4 IS and f/2.8 III came after the f/2.8 II.
p.1 #12 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
I shot professionally with the 17-40 for ~9 years before recently switching to the 16-35. Shooting with 5ds and now adapted to a7r4.
The 16-35/f4 is sharper than the 17-40, but not by as much as people on the internet would have you think. The difference is more noticeable at the long end. Noone other than you would know the difference though, I've never had a client complain about corner sharpness (or sharpness in general... no one cares but us).
If you think you will benefit from the IS then I think that would be the reason to get it over the 17-40. I miss the extra 5mm on the long end more than I enjoy the extra 1mm on the wide end, though 16 really is significantly wider than 17. I've kept the 16-35 in the lineup because it saves me the time of switching to the 12-24 as that 1mm is usually just enough to get the shot.
The 17-40 is very light, for hiking with a single lens that's what I would go with. Use the $300 you'd save on a lighter tripod/monopod.
p.1 #13 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
Also, one thing almost no one mentions about the 16-35/4 is that it gets significantly darker as you zoom. I think in reality it's around f5 on the long end. The 17-40 gives a consistent exposure across the range.
p.1 #14 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
Tamron 15-30 f2.8 G2, no question.
You have f2.8, weather sealing, 4.5 stops of stabilisation, and significantly cheaper than the Canons - especially if you "risk" grey. Only downsides are its heavy and its relatively less convenient than some Canons as it has a bulbous front element so you cannot use a filter without an expensive holder. But why would you want filters anyway since you can do so much in post to better effect.
I have one together with the 24-70 f2.8 G2 the 70-200 f2.8 G2 and the 1.4x telecon G2. I seldom use my Canon "L's" and have sold off some.
p.1 #15 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
EB-1 wrote:
I have two of the 16-35/2.8 II. Sucked is a bit much. It was better than the 16-35 first version. The f/4 IS and f/2.8 III came after the f/2.8 II.
EBH
I'll give you that one, but the II wasn't that much better than the I (I owned them both). The third version was the only lens of the three worth the price, and was significantly better than either that preceded it. The Tamron 15-30 puts the first two to shame, and I never looked back once it came out.
For the price, weight and image quality, I actually think the the 16-35/4L IS is one of the best value zoom lenses that Canon ever produced. It's my go-to architecture lens due to its minimal distortion.
p.1 #16 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
The tamrom seems to be an excellent lens but sells for $200 over the canon 16-35mm f/4 IS and it weights almost twice as much as the Canon counterparts. As for the filters, I always keep an UV filter in all of my lenses as a safety measure and a CP handy just in case.
After reading the advise from different people here I think I’m more inclined to the Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS which seems a good fit for my needs. I don’t want to add an extra 600 grams hanging from my neck /shoulder when hiking!
ashton lamont wrote:
Tamron 15-30 f2.8 G2, no question.
You have f2.8, weather sealing, 4.5 stops of stabilisation, and significantly cheaper than the Canons - especially if you "risk" i grey. Only downsides are its heavy and its relatively less convenient than some Canons as it has a bulbous front element so you cannot use a filter without an expensive holder. But why would you want filters anyway since you can do so much in post to better effect.
I have one together with the 24-70 f2.8 G2 the 70-200 f2.8 G2 and the 1.4x telecon G2. I seldom use my Canon "L's" and have sold off some.
Jeff wrote:
I'll give you that one, but the II wasn't that much better than the I (I owned them both). The third version was the only lens of the three worth the price, and was significantly better than either that preceded it. The Tamron 15-30 puts the first two to shame, and I never looked back once it came out.
For the price, weight and image quality, I actually think the the 16-35/4L IS is one of the best value zoom lenses that Canon ever produced. It's my go-to architecture lens due to its minimal distortion.
p.1 #17 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
extss wrote:
Also, one thing almost no one mentions about the 16-35/4 is that it gets significantly darker as you zoom. I think in reality it's around f5 on the long end. The 17-40 gives a consistent exposure across the range.
Actually the 16-35mm f/4 IS is a constant f/4 through the whole range. I think the IS will be more useful for me than the extra stop though
p.1 #19 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
EB-1 wrote:
I have two of the 16-35/2.8 II. Sucked is a bit much. It was better than the 16-35 first version. The f/4 IS and f/2.8 III came after the f/2.8 II.
EBH
Jeff wrote:
I'll give you that one, but the II wasn't that much better than the I (I owned them both). The third version was the only lens of the three worth the price, and was significantly better than either that preceded it. The Tamron 15-30 puts the first two to shame, and I never looked back once it came out.
For the price, weight and image quality, I actually think the the 16-35/4L IS is one of the best value zoom lenses that Canon ever produced. It's my go-to architecture lens due to its minimal distortion.
I use filters, so the bulbulous Tamron was never a consideration.
p.1 #20 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
[
I use filters, so the bulbulous Tamron was never a consideration.
EBH
Just out of interest, in what circumstances do you use filters?
I don't use filters at all any more other than occasionally polarisers (which the Tamron 15-30 G2 cannot take obviously). And even polarisers are somewhat controversial to use compared to post-editing especially on wide-angle shots in which some areas can appear artificial. I ditched all my graduated filters as they seemed to be just awkward blunt instruments especially for landscapes with varied terrain height and expanses of sky.
The main reason for me is that e.g. Capture One Pro is so good at acquiring "extra" dynamic range via the shadow and highlight areas on e.g. a 5D-IV that for me there is little point in even blending two or more images. And masking areas such as bright window areas in interior shots is not much use for filters as far as I am aware.
I still have a few filters like UV but only use those as protection in e.g. strong salt water spray. Whether filter protection in general is a good idea is controversial:
The Tamron 15-30 G2 does have a facility for inserting a filter at the opposite end to the front element but it involves a filter sheet rather than a traditional screw on filter. The Tamron has a decent built in lens hood unlike my old Canon 15mm f2.8L fisheye which is also bulbous and a pain.
If the OP is happy with f4 rather than f2.8 and if there is good stabilisation by some means then the latest Canon 16-35L F4 must be the first choice for sure. BTW yes the 15-30 is heavy but if you're not carrying a bunch of other kit you can soon get over it.
