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

end

Archive 2022 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

cheeks69
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52044841872_3336f42c51_h.jpg Untitled by Robert, on Flickr

Great photo but f16 is way too stopped down for this picture- too much defraction. At f16, the 16-35/f4 would be indisguishable from 17-40L. f8 focussed 2/3 into scene would likely would have worked and been sharper.

Likely you knew this and were waiting for the sun beams. And its hard to flip back and forth between f8 and f16.

I didn't mention it but should have, this was 5 bracketed shots and blended in Lr. I always shoot between f12 and f18 when doing LE and yes there may be some softness creeping in but to get...Show more →

I didn't mention it but should have, this was 5 bracketed shots and blended in Lr. I always shoot between f12 and f18 when doing LE and yes there may be some softness creeping in but to get the whole scene in focus it's not happening at f8 at least not in my experience. Maybe focus stacking the scene would be another option.

May 02, 2022 at 06:05 PM

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

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

I didn't mention it but should have, this was 5 bracketed shots and blended in Lr. I always shoot between f12 and f18 when doing LE and yes there may be some softness creeping in but to get the whole scene in focus it's not happening at f8 at least not in my experience. Maybe focus stacking the scene would be another option.

At 22mm, focussed at 1000 meter - 6' to infinity https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm and the dark area in the front does not require iq. But I like more sharpness than suggested by dof calculator. You may as well.

May 02, 2022 at 06:19 PM

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

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Scott Stoness wrote:
Tamron 17-35 f2.8 is a great lens for astro but its a brick. Buy it for use near your car or if you are young enough to carry a 75lb pack.

Wondering which lens you are referring to? The 15-30 Tamron is supposed to be excellent for astro and heavy but the 2nd version of the 17-35 is supposed to be excellent and not too heavy, about a pound. Lighter than 17-40. Might be good for backpacking

Edited on May 02, 2022 at 11:27 PM · View previous versions

May 02, 2022 at 10:57 PM

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

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

I didn't mention it but should have, this was 5 bracketed shots and blended in Lr. I always shoot between f12 and f18 when doing LE and yes there may be some softness creeping in but to get the whole scene in focus it's not happening at f8 at least not in my experience. Maybe focus stacking the scene would be another option.

I'll use f/16+, depending on. I do leave Diffraction Correction on. Might help, not sure what it does exactly. Maybe I'll finally get around to starting that thread

May 02, 2022 at 11:00 PM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

I own both. I was using the 16-35mm f4.0L IS for a year or two prior to purchasing the 17-40L. Reason I got the 17-40L was because it was on sale and I needed a shorter, lighter alternative for travel.

Most forums I posted questions about the 17-40L replied with negative feedback due to how "spectacular" the 16-35mm f4.0L IS was; they said I would be taking a step back in terms of IQ.

I purchased it anyway and have used it successfully since the first day I got it! I found it to be sharp at f5.6 (even open at f4.0)!

It doesn't have IS, but I never noticed any improvement in my shooting with IS anyway ( most of my subjects are moving around, so IS is irrelevant).

Of all the lenses I have purchased, the one I would keep would be the 17-40L.

Only issue I have now is that no matter what EF lens I use on my R6, it will be long and cumbersome due to the EF to R adapter. I get around that somewhat by mounting smaller EF primes whenever possible.

May 03, 2022 at 08:18 AM

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

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

AmbientMike wrote:
Wondering which lens you are referring to? The 15-30 Tamron is supposed to be excellent for astro and heavy but the 2nd version of the 17-35 is supposed to be excellent and not too heavy, about a pound. Lighter than 17-40. Might be good for backpacking

Woops I was referring to 17-30 f2.8. Thanks for correcting.

May 03, 2022 at 08:24 AM

hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

I've owned and used both heavily over the years. Stopped down to f/5.6-f/8 both are pretty good, though the 16-35 f/4L IS will still be a bit better, especially on the edges. But there isn't a huge difference unless you shoot them both at f/4. Then the 16-35 will blow the old 17-40 mm design out of the water at the wider aperture. Chromatic aberration and distortion will also be superior with the 16-35.

May 07, 2022 at 03:38 PM

bballfreak6
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Owned the 17-40 and sold it when the 16-35 f4 came out; the main differences are sharpness particularly out towards the corners, less distortion and the extra 1mm (noticeable) at the wide end. I'd say possibly better micro-contrast? I remember my first reaction shooting the 16-35 was that it had more pop.

Having said that yes while it is the superior lens it's not night and day difference either.

May 07, 2022 at 05:39 PM

Milan Hutera
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

I will stick to my long time response whenever this question pops out.

In 2022, do not bother with 17-40L or old 16-35 f2.8 L lenses and get the 16-35L IS. In my personal experience it destroys 16-35L f2.8 II (same or better performance than 17-40L) in the corners event at f11.

May 08, 2022 at 03:57 AM

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

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Milan Hutera wrote:
I will stick to my long time response whenever this question pops out.

In 2022, do not bother with 17-40L or old 16-35 f2.8 L lenses and get the 16-35L IS. In my personal experience it destroys 16-35L f2.8 II (same or better performance than 17-40L) in the corners event at f11.

I'm mostly with you on that. I have never been tempted to take out my old 17-40 after getting the 16-35mm f/4L shortly after it came out.

That isn't to say that the 17-4 is a bad or unusable lens. It just falls behind the progression in Canon lens design since it came out.

Again, if you can only afford the considerably less expensive used copy of the 17-40 and your photography is not seriously limited by the limits of the lens, it really can be a viable option and it can produce good photographs. But if you aren't in that category, the odds are very strong that you'll be a lot happier with the performance of the 16-45mm f/4.

Dan

May 08, 2022 at 12:28 PM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Still using my 17-14/4 L lens since I never observed an issue with it. But I also stopped vesting in new Canon gear after 2012, so I have no experience with the successor models of this lens. Likely they are a notch better optically - the 17-40/L is predominantly a landscape lens for me which I use mostly between f/8 and f/16. I also remember that > 10 years ago there was a lot of discussion of the lens quality of the 17-40/4 L - it seems there was a bigger lens copy variation present where some were better than others in optical quality. What I like about the 17-40/4 L lens is its low weight and the standard 77 mm filter size. The hood is a bit bulky but has the advantage that for example an attached circ. polarizer can still be rotated when the hood is mounted. I am using this lens less now since I changed to a different camera system. But I also never saw an issue with this lens when attached via adapter to my Sony E-mount FF camera.

May 09, 2022 at 06:47 AM

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

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

retrofocus wrote:
I also stopped vesting in new Canon gear after 2012...

The 16-35mm f/4L IS was introduced in 2014.

Translation: Poster who dislikes Canon and hasn't purchased Canon since switching to another system a decade ago has strong opinions about comparison between his memory of a decades-old Canon lens that he doesn't really use any more and a lens he has not used that was introduced two years after he stopped buying Canon equipment.

May 09, 2022 at 09:34 AM

Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

gdanmitchell wrote:
Translation: Poster who dislikes Canon and hasn't purchased Canon since switching to another system a decade ago has strong opinions about comparison between his memory of a decades-old Canon lens that he doesn't really use any more and a lens he has not used that was introduced two years after he stopped buying Canon equipment.

Reminds me of this guy who has strong opinions (read bs) on Zeiss lenses that he has never owned, used, or has a clue about. At least this other guy has used the lens he is commenting on.

May 09, 2022 at 09:41 AM

Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Canon 17-40 f4 vs. 16-35 f4 (stopped down)

Ricardo Morale wrote:
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.

The 17-40L is a mediocre lens. Performance-wise it shouldn't be in the L category. The corners are terrible (even at f/8 and beyond). If you are not very discriminating I guess it will do.

The 16-35 f/4 is a much better optic. I haven't owned it but I rented it once.

May 09, 2022 at 09:45 AM

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

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