p.1 #1 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
I have an R5.
I've had my EF 17-40L f4 for 20 or so years now. It's served me well but I'm thinking of upgrading to something more modern. Any thoughts?
I'd like to stay under $1000 and I'm open to new or used.
First thought is a used 16-35L f2.8. (found a recent sold listing for $800).
or something like the RF 16-28 f2.8 (not an L lens but I'm thinking a modern day RF lens would still likely beat the 17-40L (sharpness, AF) in that the 17-40 was arguably a fringe L lens). Around $1100 new so I'm guessing a used copy could be under $1k.
I'm also open to a Sigma or Tamron EF lens though I'm sure they are harder to find at this point. The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 looks perfect but I'm reading it wouldn't be good on a full frame camera? Any other good 3rd party EF lenses I should look at?
p.1 #2 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
IME the 17-40 was not very good, and neither was the 16-35/2.8. The 16-35/2.8 II was a little better, but still not great. The 16-35/2.8 III is the only one I would consider for the R5. However, I still use the 16-35/4 IS with an adapter and not my three 16-35/2.8s. The f/4 lens is quite good and would be in your price range.
Starting from zero maybe you should get the 14-35 RF, but probably it is over your price range.
p.1 #3 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
Future Man wrote:
I have an R5.
I've had my EF 17-40L f4 for 20 or so years now. It's served me well but I'm thinking of upgrading to something more modern. Any thoughts?
I'd like to stay under $1000 and I'm open to new or used.
First thought is a used 16-35L f2.8. (found a recent sold listing for $800).
or something like the RF 16-28 f2.8 (not an L lens but I'm thinking a modern day RF lens would still likely beat the 17-40L (sharpness, AF) in that the 17-40 was arguably a fringe L lens). Around $1100 new so I'm guessing a used copy could be under $1k.
I'm also open to a Sigma or Tamron EF lens though I'm sure they are harder to find at this point. The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 looks perfect but I'm reading it wouldn't be good on a full frame camera? Any other good 3rd party EF lenses I should look at?...Show more →
p.1 #4 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
EB-1 wrote:
IME the 17-40 was not very good, and neither was the 16-35/2.8. The 16-35/2.8 II was a little better, but still not great. The 16-35/2.8 III is the only one I would consider for the R5. However, I still use the 16-35/4 IS with an adapter and not my three 16-35/2.8s. The f/4 lens is quite good and would be in your price range.
Starting from zero maybe you should get the 14-35 RF, but probably it is over your price range.
EBH
yea the 17-40 is a pretty mid lens. Even still when I bought it 20 years ago as a college student it was a big deal haha. I believe I had the Digital Rebel XT.
hmm yea the RF 14-35 or the 16-35 III (don't believe this would be under $1k though used) or 16-35 f4 is looking like my best bets.
p.1 #5 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
Future Man wrote:
I have an R5.
I've had my EF 17-40L f4 for 20 or so years now. It's served me well but I'm thinking of upgrading to something more modern. Any thoughts?
I'd like to stay under $1000 and I'm open to new or used.
First thought is a used 16-35L f2.8. (found a recent sold listing for $800).
or something like the RF 16-28 f2.8 (not an L lens but I'm thinking a modern day RF lens would still likely beat the 17-40L (sharpness, AF) in that the 17-40 was arguably a fringe L lens). Around $1100 new so I'm guessing a used copy could be under $1k.
I'm also open to a Sigma or Tamron EF lens though I'm sure they are harder to find at this point. The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 looks perfect but I'm reading it wouldn't be good on a full frame camera? Any other good 3rd party EF lenses I should look at?...Show more →
I don't think you are going to find better value and a better fit for your R5 in anything past the RF 16-28 f/2.8.
I originally owned the 15-35 RF and just got sick of lugging it around. The weather sealing on the 16-28 is great- I have had it out in Oregon rainstorms and its held up flawlessly.
I think it would be a nice step up for you coming from the 17-40. Not having to muck with an adapter anymore and its just a really nice pice of glass to use.
I have zero complaints about sharpness with it. I like it just as much as I did the 15-35 in terms of optics. I also really like the 28-70 RF f/2.8
Couple that with a 67mm filter thread on both zooms and all the new 1.4 Primes, I am happy with the lens lineup. I want talk about bodies but thats another discussion
p.1 #6 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
RustyRus wrote:
I don't think you are going to find better value and a better fit for your R5 in anything past the RF 16-28 f/2.8.
I originally owned the 15-35 RF and just got sick of lugging it around. The weather sealing on the 16-28 is great- I have had it out in Oregon rainstorms and its held up flawlessly.
I think it would be a nice step up for you coming from the 17-40. Not having to muck with an adapter anymore and its just a really nice pice of glass to use.
I have zero complaints about sharpness with it. I like it just as much as I did the 15-35 in terms of optics. I also really like the 28-70 RF f/2.8
Couple that with a 67mm filter thread on both zooms and all the new 1.4 Primes, I am happy with the lens lineup. I want talk about bodies but thats another discussion
it doesn't seem like the 14-35 is that significantly bigger than the 15-28 (only 0.2 lbs heavier). Is it really that much worse?
yea I have used the RF24-70 extensively at work and I love it obviously. Just out of my range now with 2 kids (one in daycare!). But also miss those really wide shots you can't get at 24mm.
p.1 #7 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
Future Man wrote:
it doesn't seem like the 14-35 is that significantly bigger than the 15-28 (only 0.2 lbs heavier). Is it really that much worse?
yea I have used the RF24-70 extensively at work and I love it obviously. Just out of my range now with 2 kids (one in daycare!). But also miss those really wide shots you can't get at 24mm.
We aren't talking about the same stuff
I was talking about the 15-35 F/2.8 Lens that I owned-
The 14-35 f/4 is much closer insize/price. Up to you if you want a stop more or a bit wider zoom range.
Also I was talking about the New 28-70 f/2.8 non l- Its priced at the same price point as the 16-28. It makes a great combo that is very light and really nice to use.
I have owned both combos now-
The 15-35/24-70 F/2.8 L lenses
I moved on due to size
I now shoot with the 16-28/28-70 F/2.8 Non L zooms and I am much happier. They fit in my bag, half the weight almost and great IQ-
p.1 #8 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
The 16-28 is $1250 and the 14-35 is $1500, not counting any discounts.
The 16-28 is a videocentric lens (not an L) with STM AF. The 14-35 is a typical USM L lens for photography and can be used for video. Both require computational correction for distortion and some for CA.
p.1 #10 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
EF 16-35/4 L IS +1
Oct 02, 2025 at 11:02 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #11 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
Future Man wrote:
I have an R5.
I've had my EF 17-40L f4 for 20 or so years now. It's served me well but I'm thinking of upgrading to something more modern. Any thoughts?
I'd like to stay under $1000 and I'm open to new or used.
First thought is a used 16-35L f2.8. (found a recent sold listing for $800).
or something like the RF 16-28 f2.8 (not an L lens but I'm thinking a modern day RF lens would still likely beat the 17-40L (sharpness, AF) in that the 17-40 was arguably a fringe L lens). Around $1100 new so I'm guessing a used copy could be under $1k.
I'm also open to a Sigma or Tamron EF lens though I'm sure they are harder to find at this point. The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 looks perfect but I'm reading it wouldn't be good on a full frame camera? Any other good 3rd party EF lenses I should look at?...Show more →
I've thought about picking up 17-40, the one opticallimits tested looked quite good by 20mm, and i avoided 17mm on ff on my 17-35 sigma, so it's nothing I haven't done before. One of the lighter options. Nobody thinks its better than 16-35/4 though.
Tamron had a newer EF 17-35 IIRC that looked quite good (old one might not be too great not sure.) Mpb and keh are more around $1200 on the 14-35 unless you get a beater for <$1k could probably get one a little less private seller. 15-30 Tamron supposed to be excellent
Oct 02, 2025 at 11:12 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #12 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
15-30 Canon supposedly pretty good, very inexpensive
p.1 #13 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
Looks like your best options are:
RF 16-28 f/2.8 - approximately 1K or less if you can find them used
RF 14-35 f/4 - these can be had for like new around $800 here on B&S
EF 16-35 f/4 - I have a mint one in my drawer I will sell you for $430 shipped
Edit: Forgot about EF 16-35 f/2.8 versions, but I wouldn't go there with RF when the RF 16-28 is available.
p.1 #16 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
I've been pleased with my RF 14-35L: petite, sharp, and the nano USM AF is fast, silent and accurate. It's an easy carry and works well for tight quarters video (musicians on stage). And, yeah, head and shoulders above my prior EF 17-40 in every way. Combined with IBIS, the IS is silky smooth, almost gimbal like for hand held video.
p.1 #18 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
Future Man wrote:
it doesn't seem like the 14-35 is that significantly bigger than the 15-28 (only 0.2 lbs heavier). Is it really that much worse?
The 16-28/2.8 is nice but it has two drawbacks: It lacks two mils at the bottom, and more importantly, seven mils at the long end. I find that to be a serious everyday use problem. Unless you need that extra stop, the 14-35 is a complete no-brainer to me.
Where I'm coming from: I absolutely love my 10-20 (although I learned its limits and challenges all too well in Cambodia). The biggest challenge is that it ends at 20, which back in my youth was the wide end of the "crazy" 20-35L that I owned. The long-end mils is what makes the lens more general purpose. I know 28 isn't 20, but it's not 35 either.
p.1 #19 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
ok I'm definitely going for the RF 14-35. Will be cool to finally have a native RF lens for my R5 (though I use the 24-70 and 70-200 all the time at my job).
Just gotta keep an eye on Buy/Sell forum. Seems like every time it comes up it's a great deal.
p.1 #20 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts?
EB-1 wrote:
The 16-28 is $1250 and the 14-35 is $1500, not counting any discounts.
The 16-28 is a videocentric lens (not an L) with STM AF. The 14-35 is a typical USM L lens for photography and can be used for video. Both require computational correction for distortion and some for CA.
EBH
I just sold my mint 14-35L US-purchased for $870 with box and all accessories, it appears on Buy & Sell from time to time at similar prices. A great lens (I replaced it with the 10-20, different beast).
