Here is a shot at 17mm, stopped down to f/8 on the 17-40/4L.
I think the resolution is good but not superb. However, the colors and
contrast with this lens are definitely L calibre. This shot was taken with
a very good polarizer, so this is more saturation than I normally get with this
lens, but you can expect decent sharpness stopped down and great color
and contrast. http://www.pbase.com/tswen/image/78425977/original.jpg
If you want to see some test shots (including landspaces) with this
lens and a more recent copy, you can get the full-size (original) images
off this page: http://www.pbase.com/tswen/1740l_tests
I can't offer any first-hand opinions on either of the 16-35's. Anybody
have some 16-35 I/II landscapes?
I'd say go for the 17-40, it's excellent and the only thing it lacks is the extra stop of light. And for the difference in price you can just about pick up the 15mm fisheye, which is another crackingly-sharp lens (better than both zooms probably) and aweseome glass to have in the arsenal. De-fished it's like a 12mm rectilinear which is another cool option too.
jamato8 wrote:
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?
According to the manual it requires a filter to seal it.
Matt Tilghman wrote:
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.
Matt, at this level of the game, there is no such thing of a LOT better. A lot of discussions and disagreements are just for the marginal improvements. Pretty similar to the 'discussions' of sound quality difference of a $2000 and $5000 pair of speakers - there are a lot other factors that affect the outcome and it costs you a fortune to get the last little bit improvement, if your ears are good enough.
If you regularly shoot at f8 - f11, I really doubt that you have to worry which lens will give you notably difference, as there will be little or none. The 17-40 is smaller and my copy is pretty sharp enough.
The answer depends a lot on what and how you shoot.
If your primary need is a lens to shoot hand held low light and indoor subjects at wide open apertures then the additional cost and larger size/weight of the 16-35 could be worth it.
If your primary interest is in large DOF landscape/architectural and similar photography done at small apertures then the 17-40 will equal or every so slightly exceed the performance of the 16-35 at a lower cost and smaller size weight.
The chief virtues of the 16-35 are in its performance wide open. The chief virtues of the 17-40 (aside from price and size) are its performance stopped down. In my opinion, this is especially true on FF.
i have just got a mk2 16-35. in terms of sharpness center rez, its way ahead of any of my other lenses and an old 17-40 i had. iam just deciding what i do to. this 16-35 is execellnt down the rhs, the left only improving from f11+ but still not resolving as much as the center. the colour,contast etc flare resiatnce is very very good.
shame its crap down the LHS. it is whoever very good through the range with exceptional charactersiscts from 20mm+.
do i buy another 17-40 or another 16-35, well thats what i gotta deal with to.
Several years ago I bought the 17-40 based on price, internal focusing, essentially internal zoom with a front filter, and sealing (agian with filter) after trying third party consumer zooms in this focal range (the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 is actually a pretty nice lens). I also wanted a full frame lens to use with my EOS 3. After shooting in bright Florida sun I realized how flare resistant it is. It is my lens of choice when I head to the coast or any other environment involving the potential for wind-blown sand, dust or water. I've not been tempted by the higher-priced f2.8 lenses yet.
What if you needed the 2.8 aperture but bought the 17-40 because we told you it was sharper? How sharp is an image made from a lens which isn't fast enough to freeze your subject motion? Both are professional tools capable of professional results when used properly. Choose the lens with the features that meets your shooting requirements.
I think that the 17-40 lens and the 16-35 lens selections are geared towards different individuals. I'm guessing the 16-35 f/2.8 is geared towards event photographers who need that extra stop of performance, regardless of the "softness". I mean, what's worse, a slightly soft image, that may not seem so soft in post, or in print, or an image blurred by too slow a shutter speed.
My Sigma 12-24 is good, not pin sharp obviously but stopped down to f/8 or f/11 it's very satisfactory for that FL. I got so annoyed by Sigma in the 50/1.4 back-focusing debacle that I'm going to sell it! Don't need ultra-ultra-wide very often.
trumpet_guy wrote:
According to hubsand (Mark) over in the Alternative board,
that lens is _very_ prone to poor copies. ...
Yes, it is. Still, if you can find a good one - it's really worth the price. And you will get the widest zoom glass - no primes for this focal length to better the performance
My old sigma 15-30 is sharper than either 17-40 or 16-35I, though I use a 17-40 for ease of filter use and better control of flare. The 15-30 is really exceptionally sharp across the frame but I have to admit in my experience Sigma QC (copy variation) can be poor. For me the only choice in the Canon lineup would be between 17-40 and 16-35(II), cost and aperture being the only important differences.
