No, haven't tried the 16-35 f/2.8 - but I've pored over a lot of tests and reportso f that lens and I've shot the 17-40 extensively and tested in extensively as well.
I hear stories of some copies of the lens that are supposedly not so sharp, and since I only have my copy to go by there's not too much I can say about that. Mine is very sharp - in the center is is one of the sharpest lenses I own. Here are a couple links to some test shots:
The first two examples where done on a FF 5D and the third on an 8MP crops sensor body. (Note that in the first example the corner section was from a portion of the subject that was only a few feet away from the camera, as the frame was shot at 17mm.)
If you shoot FF and at small apertures the 17-40 is very sharp. Mine compares very will in the center with my other L lenses and my 50mm f/1.4 stopped down. The corners are soft at large apertures, so it is not great for getting corner to corner sharpness at large apertures - but that is generally not the issue in landscape photography. (I recognize that there are exceptions.)
In prints the image quality when I shoot at f/11 or f/16 on FF is excellent across the frame. Yes it is better in the center and there is some (correctible) CA in the far corners if you pixel peep at 100%, but in prints these issues are inconsequential. (100% crops from the 5D at my screen resolution represent prints approximately 5 feet wide. If you have viewed many prints of this size close up, you have a realistic idea of what to expect - and you'll recognize the sharpness in my examples as quite good.)
When is the 17-40 not a "better" choice? If you plan to shoot a lot of very low light hand held UWA (on FF) or WA (on crop) images - that sort of photography really plays to the obvious strengths of the 16-35mm f/2.8.
But if you primary use for such a lens is landscape and your notion of landscape photography does not generally include shooting a UWA lens wide open, there is little if anything to recommend the 16-35 over the 17-40 for that purpose.
I'll stand by all of the points I made in reference to this specific type of usage.
Take care,
Dan
PKuglin wrote:
Dan, I have to disagree with you. Have you tried all these lens and made up you own mind from 1st hand knowledge? I have. I have owned 2 copies of the 17-40, a copy of the 16-35 MKI (and used a friend's copy), a CZ21 (still have it and it's the best IQ) a OM18 (great lens and very small), and a new 16-35 MKII. Of all the ones I tested the 17-40's were the worst IQ - sorry, but that was my findings especially in the corners. However, for the cost they were very good and if the OP asked for the "BEST VALUE" that would be the answer.
The OP didn't ask for that he asked for the "BEST". In my book it's the 16-35MKII. the CZ21/OM18 are primes and as such are limited in versatility. The 16-35MKII range is great, but I typically only use it 16-24mm as I use a 24-70 above that. Don't under value the F2.8. Having a bright viewfinder in low light situations is very important in landscape work. I shoot in low light a lot during twilight and the extra stop is very important to compose and manually focus. AF is of less importance in landscape work. To say the 16-35MKII adds no value is simply incorrect. Landscape shooter's buy F2.8 simply for that reason.
I my book the 16-35 MKII is the best - it has the most points going or it.
David Vaughn wrote:
I'm taking a trip to Yellowstone and would like the "best" wide angle for landscapes. Assume money is not an issue with any of the 3 lenses I'm thinking about below, and assume this lens will go on a full frame sensor. I've read some glowing reports about the 24mm prime, but the "buzz" seemed to be about shooting indoors in low light. I don't shoot indoors, and have no desire to. I've owned the 24-105, which I liked, but isn't wide enough; I've owned the 17-40 which was a little soft in my opinion. I was thinking about the 24 prime, the 16-35 II, and the 17-55 2.8. I like the concept of the extra range of the 17-55, but I'm not sure its up to par with the other two, since it isn't a pro lens. I realize that I will only use this lens about 5% of the time based on what I typically shoot (birds), but there are some beautiful places where birds hang out, and when I shoot a landscape I want a photograph, not a picture.
Thanks for your thoughts....Show more →
I can hear the Alternative Gear & Lenses forum calling your name already
There are a few exotic non-Canon lenses discuss over there.
danmitchell wrote:
When is the 17-40 not a "better" choice? If you plan to shoot a lot of very low light hand held UWA (on FF) or WA (on crop) images - that sort of photography really plays to the obvious strengths of the 16-35mm f/2.8.
But if you primary use for such a lens is landscape and your notion of landscape photography does not generally include shooting a UWA lens wide open, there is little if anything to recommend the 16-35 over the 17-40 for that purpose.
I'll stand by all of the points I made in reference to this specific type of usage....Show more →
Dan - you are missing the point. I don't shoot landscapes wide open. I simply want a bright view finder. Try shooting in a slot canyon or in twilight conditions. That extra stop really helps to compose and focus. If I could I would want a F1.0 except for the weight and probably cost . In landscape photography I mainly shoot early or late in the day where the extra stop of brightness really helps.
It has nothing to do with hand held or shooting wide open.
That is when the 17-40 is not the "best" choice. I ask you when is the 17-40 the right choice? because of cost? that couple oz's of weight really matter? To me those are of little value. IQ of course is the most value and from my tests the 16-35 was better.
PKuglin wrote:
Dan - you are missing the point. I don't shoot landscapes wide open. I simply want a bright view finder. Try shooting in a slot canyon or in twilight conditions. That extra stop really helps to compose and focus. If I could I would want a F1.0 except for the weight and probably cost . In landscape photography I mainly shoot early or late in the day where the extra stop of brightness really helps.
It has nothing to do with hand held or shooting wide open.
That is when the 17-40 is not the "best" choice. I ask you when is the 17-40 the right choice? because of cost? that couple oz's of weight really matter? To me those are of little value. IQ of course is the most value and from my tests the 16-35 was better....Show more →
Phil, you have a very valid point there about the faster lens being much easier to focus in dim light. I used a 17-40 at Antelope Canyon this past week and I sure could have used something faster just so that I could focus easier in the dim light. Yes, also the extra 2 ounces seems trivial to me. Cost is probably the most critical deciding factor that makes people choose a 17-40 over a 16-35. I know it was for me.
Dont ask me whats written there, but seems that 14-24 is overhyped.
Really interesting comparisons. It seems like yhr %D is sharper int the centre, perhaps due to a weaker AA filter, but that the D3 out-performs the 5D at the edges. The Italian author suggests this has something to do with the 5D's "difficulties of it's
sensor to match with the peripheral light pencil."
It is my understanding that digital camera sensors' are generally weaker at the edges than film because the pixels' lenses to not collect and record light coming in at a more obtuse angle as well as the acute light in the center.
Has the D3 overcome this somehow?
Also, the test provides plenty of comfort for those relying on the 17-40mm f/4 L as their UWA.
As long as you accept the idea that the "best" lens for you might be different than the "best" lens for someone else - an idea I readily accept - I don't see that we are really disagreeing that much.
I'm certainly not stating that the 17-40mm f/4 is "the best lens" in all situations. In fact, I've written positively about the 16-35 and recommended it to certain people who needed its specific strengths.
But the OP started a subject thread title "Best Wide Angle for Landscapes" - and for most folks looking specifically for a landscape lens the 17-40 can be a "better" choice than the 16-35, at least if the conditions I mentioned in my earlier post apply to their work.
Do I shoot in low light with my 17-40? All the time. (In fact, I do night photography with the lens.) Do I have problems focusing and composing due to its f/4 aperture. Not really. Do I understand that larger aperture lenses can make for a brighter viewfinder? Yes, I own and use such lenses for other purposes. (Anyone who thinks they might find this to be an issue can set their f/2.8 lens to f/4 and press the preview button to see whether the difference is significant to them.)
Does the 16-35mm lens produce better image quality than the 17-40 in "typical" (with all due respect to those who do shoot landscapes in other ways) landscape photographs? On full frame, clearly no. On crop, maybe. (Though they crop shooters might also want to look at the EFS17-55mm f/2.8 IS.)
For whom is the 17-40mm lens perhaps the "best" choice? A photographer using the UWA (or WA on crop) lens for landscape or similar work where deep DOF is a goal and thus tending to shoot stopped down. A photographer who understands that the 17-40 is at least as good for this type of photography and doesn't want to spend funds unnecessarily for features that won't improve his/her photography. A photographer who tries to maintain a smaller/lighter kit for various reasons.
For whom might the 16-35mm lens perhaps be the "best" choice? A photographer who often needs to shoot hand held in low light at wide apertures. (Such a photographer could certainly use the 16-35 for landscape as well.) A photographer who wants an extra stop of narrower DOF - though the value of that on a UWA is debatable. And - though I don't mean to imply that this is you - a photographer who reflexively assumes that the more expensive, bigger, larger aperture lens is "better" than other options. You know, the "gotta' have the 'best'" people...
Bottom line for me. Both are really fine lenses, though their strengths lie in different areas. For me, as someone who does a lot of landscape photography, the 17-40 is a great performer, and even though I'd be willing and able to pay the price for the 16-35 I just don't see that it provides any significant benefit for the type of photography I do.
PKuglin wrote:
Dan - you are missing the point. I don't shoot landscapes wide open. I simply want a bright view finder. Try shooting in a slot canyon or in twilight conditions. That extra stop really helps to compose and focus. If I could I would want a F1.0 except for the weight and probably cost . In landscape photography I mainly shoot early or late in the day where the extra stop of brightness really helps.
It has nothing to do with hand held or shooting wide open.
That is when the 17-40 is not the "best" choice. I ask you when is the 17-40 the right choice? because of cost? that couple oz's of weight really matter? To me those are of little value. IQ of course is the most value and from my tests the 16-35 was better....Show more →
Duncan Gibson wrote:
It is my understanding that digital camera sensors' are generally weaker at the edges than film because the pixels' lenses to not collect and record light coming in at a more obtuse angle as well as the acute light in the center.
This is pretty much a myth. There is a theoretical reason to imagine that there could be such a problem at the edges of FF sensor image, but the reality is that you don't see it in photographs.
If you stop down to f/16 or so on a FF body you won't see this corner light fall-off. You do see it - just as we did on film - at larger apertures. If it was a sensor effect rather than a lens effect it wouldn't go away as it does at the smaller apertures.
danmitchell wrote Does the 16-35mm lens produce better image quality than the 17-40 in "typical" (with all due respect to those who do shoot landscapes in other ways) landscape photographs? On full frame, clearly no. On crop, maybe. (Though they crop shooters might also want to look at the EFS17-55mm f/2.8 IS.)
Dan I guess we will clearly disagree. I shoot FF (1Ds2 and 1Ds3). I understand you shoot a 5D. I have tested them and my 16-35MKII clearly beat 2 17-40's. I know several pros who when they got their new 1Ds3's sold their 17-40's and got a 16-35 because they too found it better. Marc Adamus was one and his 17-40 was OK on his 5D - something to think about. So I see the statement "On full frame, clearly no" isn't a fact. I understand you are biased and as such have made up your mind, but it doesn't make it a fact. I respect your choice, but please do not use "absolutes" here because if it can be proved wrong just once it isn't valid. What I find funny is you are so sure and your knowledge is based on 2nd hand knowledge i.e. someone else's review.
Duncan Gibson wrote:
It is my understanding that digital camera sensors' are generally weaker at the edges than film because the pixels' lenses to not collect and record light coming in at a more obtuse angle as well as the acute light in the center.
This is pretty much a myth. There is a theoretical reason to imagine that there could be such a problem at the edges of FF sensor image, but the reality is that you don't see it in photographs.
If you stop down to f/16 or so on a FF body you won't see this corner light fall-off. You do see it - just as we did on film - at larger apertures. If it was a sensor effect rather than a lens effect it wouldn't go away as it does at the smaller apertures.
Oh really - have you read why Leica made the M8 a 1.3x crop? It was done for this very reason. The short lens to sensor distance of the rangefinder design made the angle on the sensor too acute at the edges. However, it was fine with film.
The Leica, being a rangefinder camera, places the rear elements of its lenses closer to the sensor than do the DSLR bodies with their need to leave space for the mirror to operate. But no need to hypothesize... you can easily use your gear to test this and see if you see any significant light fall off due to this supposed sensor issue.
I have tested this under relatively controlled conditions. You can see a brief example shot with the EF 50mm f/1.4 on the 5D here: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/04/15/about-vignetting - it compares f/1.4 (where vignetting is clearly visible) and f/4 (where it already is not).
I'll let the 17-40 thing go, and chalk it up to different opinions. Biases go both ways - and I'm sure that I'm no more immune to them than you. You are correct that I do not use a 1 Series body and that I have not shot with the 16-35mm f/2.8.
Take care,
Dan
(My hosting company is having a problem - hopefully temporary - and the URL was unavailable right after I posted. Check back later if you can't access it right away.)
Edited by danmitchell on Mar 30, 2008 at 04:46 PM GMT
. In landscape photography I mainly shoot early or late in the day where the extra stop of brightness really helps.