sorry about creating a thread with a similar question to my last, but this forum is so busy I doubt you all would have noticed that they were both mine.
Anyways, I'd like to hear some opinions on the 17-40L vs the 16-35L.
I know about the differences in size, weight, range, price, and aperture. What I'd really like to hear about are differences in sharpness, color, fringing, distortion, etc...
The 17-40 is slightly better than the 16-35L mkI version, if you have the bucks the mkII version is better than either, of course it's about 3 times the price of the 17-40F4. There is a very good review on Luminous Landscape on the 17-40 vs 16-35 mk I, in short the 17-40 comes out slightly ahead. The other question is do you need F2.8?
I have decided that I do not need 2.8. That's why I dont really need to hear about the aperture, would just like to hear about sharpness, etc.
I had amped myself up to make a huge photography purchase soon, but recently decided against it, so in comparison either of these are a smaller purchase than I was planning, so I am willing to buy either. So if the 16 is a lot better optically, I think I would get it. But since i don't need the 2.8, I would obviously prefer the 17, if it does not mean sacrificing optical quality.
Gerry Szarek wrote:
The 17-40 is slightly better than the 16-35L mkI version, if you have the bucks the mkII version is better than either, of course it's about 3 times the price of the 17-40F4. There is a very good review on Luminous Landscape on the 17-40 vs 16-35 mk I, in short the 17-40 comes out slightly ahead. The other question is do you need F2.8?
I looked at various test reports and found the following results:
The 16-35 mark I is soft at the 16mm end of the focal length range and sharp at 35mm, but that's not what you buy an ultrawide for.
The 16-35 mark II is soft at the 35mm end of the focal length range and sharp at 16mm, but you don't need a zoom that works well at only one end of the range.
The 17-40 has an average performance that is worse than the best of either of the 16-35s and yet better than the worst of those lenses - and for a fraction of the cost. It is more consistent right across the zoom range.
I find it frustrating that a top of the line lens only works well on half of its zoom range but that's the way it is. I just bought a 17-40 and I'm happy so far but as I expected it takes a bit of getting used to ultra wide angle photography.
You can check out reviews and compare test shots at The-digital-picture.com. When you go to their ISO test shots you can select two different lenses or the same lens at two different settings, and mouse-over the images to alternate between the two selections. They show samples from middle and edge of the image and in between, and they use a 30D and a 1Ds2 for the shots.
Both of these lenses are excellent. I have used the 16-35mm F2.8L and own the 17-40mm F4L. The decider was cost. I was interested in the 16-35mm because of the extra 1mm of wide angle, believe it or not. When I got into a digital SLR, I got a 1.6 crop camera and there were far fewer choices in wide angles compared with what we have now. In the end I decided to spend the AU $1000 difference on something else and go with the 17-40mm. I have never regretted it.
I think sharpness is over emphasised on this forum. Without wishing to have a go at anyone here, it seems to be the only thing anyone ever considers in the choice of lens so Matt, your question is indeed a welcome change. There are many other things which should be considered when buying a lens like this. I can tell you now that both exhibit some barrel distortion and in ugly light I've even seen some chromatic aberration in the 16-35mm. For the record, both these lenses have good sharpness (assuming they're within tolerances) and neither is so soft that it can't easily be corrected. I have just had mine tested and, yes, it's soft in the corners but that would only be noticeable on a full frame camera, which I don't own. The 16-35mm suffers from the same affliction. I can't recall a case where flare has been a problem with either lens.
My 17-40mm has beautiful contrast and saturation, to the point where I can't imagine how it could be much better.
*EDIT* I should point out that the 16-35mm was designed originally for film cameras and the 17-40mm is a more recent development. I don't know what improvements have been made in the 16-35mm F2.8L II and have no personal experience of the lens.
Alan321 wrote:
The 17-40 has an average performance that is worse than the best of either of the 16-35s and yet better than the worst of those lenses - and for a fraction of the cost. It is more consistent right across the zoom range.
- Alan
That's a courageous statement minister. I've not seen one shred of evidence that a good 16-35 I is any better than a good 17-40. The 17-40 is supposedly better at the wide end, and the 16-35 at the long end, but I've not seen any evidence on my own 17-40 that's better wide than long.
The 16-35 II is superb in the centre between 16-24 at all apertures, but still doesn't reach great heights in the corner, although not bad. Stopped down the 17-40 is probably as good in the corners and only loses a little to the 16-35 II.
It's disappointing the 16-35 II only improved the wide end and didn't improve the corner performance much at all. For landscape use there's not much point to the 16-35 II over the 17-40. But for city type work, candids etc the 16-35 II is prime like in the centre and would be hard to pass up on.
If you get a good 16-35 I it's also a fine lens and they are going for a good price. The 16-35 I seems to have a lot of variability and many have nothing good to say at all about it, others have nothing but praise. It polarizes opinion as much the the 400 DO.
J.D. wrote:
You'd think with Canon's predilection for full-frame cameras, they would have made that a priority, no?
Yup, but clearly landscape photographer's mustn't have complained loud enough. Still the 16-35 II is a fine lens, but could have been a knockout rather than just very good.
The 17-40 is slightly better than the 16-35L mkI version,
The 16-35 mark I is soft at the 16mm end of the focal length range and sharp at 35mm, but that's not what you buy an ultrawide for.
I have to respectfully disagree with both of those statements. From my experience with both I have to say that my 16-35 (version 1)is better (sharpness, contrast) than any of the 17-40s I have used and my 16-35 is slightly better at the 16mm end. I would have to say that sample variation plays a bigger role in this discussion than anything else. I will say that my 16-35 kills any other untra wide I a have used in focus accuracy and speed. This would include the the 17-40, 17-35 tamron, 18-50 sigma.
I've owned two copies of the 17-40 and one of the 16-35 and can say that my experience was the same as that of The Luminous Landscape. The 17-40 is as least as good as the 16-35 and better at the wide end. I use the current copy of my 17-40 for WA landscape work at f/8-f16 where it performs very well. If you don't need 2.8, the 17-40 is the best WA Canon make, right there with the 24 1.4L at the same FL. And it's arguably the best "L" value they make too. Good luck.
Whayne, check out the test shots at the-digital-picture.com. I cannot vouch for how well the tested samples represent the general lens population but at least you'll see your first shred of evidence for what I wrote. Here are two links:
Mouse over the chart to see the 16-35. Otherwise it shows the 17-40. I have selected 35mm and f/4 in the first one comparing the 17-40 with the 16-35 II, and 16/17mm f/5.6 in the second one comparing the 17-40 and the 16-35 I. You can play with the many variations.
Btw, "courageous" is a bit of a worry for we fans of the political satire TV show called Yes Minister. It effectively means "political suicide" or "huge mistake" Our American friends may never have seen that show.
I use my 17-40 for lots of pro jobs and when stopped down a bit it's a great little lens - even on low ISO 5D files, very little distortion if kept level and good sharpness
I use the 17-40. Since I mostly use it for landscape work or other photography on the tripod, I usually shoot it at f/11 or f/16 on my 5D. At these apertures it is very sharp across the frame and does not exhibit significant fall-off.
At wide open apertures on full frame it is soft in the corners and does show significant fall-off. If these are concerns - at wide apertures - then those who need to shoot hand held in low light might find the 16-35 to be just the thing.
I have the 16-35 II and I am very happy with it. I got it to match my 24-70's low light capability.
I'm sure the 17-40 is a great lens as I've seen many people raving about it.
The new 16-35 has ironed out a few of it's earlier versions problems but it is an UWA so we all know the physical challenges this causes.
There will be compromises.
That aside if you need low light then go 16-35, if you are happy with F4, well it's a no brainer, get the 17-40 which is also an excellent lens.
I shoot only Canon L Primes and Macros and the
only zoom I still use and won't eliminate is the 17-40L.
Unless you must have f/2.8 either generation 16-35
is a very hard deal for me to make as the 17-40L is
pleasing for all my needs.
Lenses are supposed to be sharp at f/8. I think it's reasonable to expect pro-caliber lenses to be sharp wide open. The thing about the 17-40L (which may apply to the 16-35; I don't know) is that it really likes to be stopped down at least a stop. Most lenses are like this, and it's not that big a deal when the lens starts out with a nice big aperture. But an f/4 lens that needs to be stopped down is an f/5.6 lens in practice. (The 70-200 f/4L is a good example of an f/4 lens that does not share this characteristic and is quite good at f/4.)
I can see how the 17-40 would be an ideal landscape lens, but I found it less than ideal for other uses.
I just got the 16-35II today. Nice lens but does anyone know if the weather sealing requires a filter be in place as with some of the lenses in the Canon line-up? I have stopped using filters, after years of advocating though there are very good reasons for and against but to the main question, I wonder if this lens requires a filter for full sealing?
Our American friends may never have seen that show.