I hope I made the right move/ I sold my 17-40, a lens I have had nothing but praise for, I had to try it, I got what I paid I for the lens when I bought it 3 years ago. My question to owners of the MKII or both, is, is it going to be sharper? I seldom stop down with a super wide and hope I gain everything, except, on the 1DS II I will miss teh 5mm on the long end once in a while. Is this lens sharper??
I bought a 17-40 and recently upgraded to the 16-35L II because I'm shooting indoors and wanted the extra stop at 2.8. Other than that, don't expect a huge difference in performance. I don't think you'll regret your purchase, but my 17-40 was very sharp and the 16-35L II is perhaps a tiny bit better, but nothing you'd notice in a standard print. As to whether its worth twice the price... that's up to the individual. Both will exhibit some curvature distortion at the widest end... the 16 still have vignetting but a little less than the 17 when wide open. Color and contrast is great in both. Do you need the extra stop? If not, you might want to try one out before taking the plunge on the 16-35L II.
SAUMBI wrote:
I hope I made the right move/ I sold my 17-40, a lens I have had nothing but praise for, I had to try it, I got what I paid I for the lens when I bought it 3 years ago. My question to owners of the MKII or both, is, is it going to be sharper? I seldom stop down with a super wide and hope I gain everything, except, on the 1DS II I will miss teh 5mm on the long end once in a while. Is this lens sharper??
The major difference is the wider aperture, not image quality. But having f/2.8 at your disposal can often make all the difference in the world when it comes to capturing a usable image vs. not being able to capture one because you couldn't gather enough light.
JazzyMac wrote:
Um, I think he's saying he already took the plunge.
Yep, I dove head first!! I really been going to for a couple months, just wanted to justify it. I have had a few instances where the stop would have been nice. Mainly just was scared off by some of the reviews, but most that were bad were not pros and think they have the thought that money or equipment makes great photos?? I will get it Friday and just wanted some hands on feedback while I so anxiously wait!
The 17-40L is an excellent lens for the money.....I believe I've got a decent copy too because I've gone thru three of them before settling on my current one.
However, my 16-35L MkI had better IQ, even wide open.
My 16-35L MkII is even better, in fact surprisingly so.
Therefore, it is not only that you will gain aperture-wise, but IQ should improve as well.
Seriously though, At f/8 to f/16 there is virtually no difference between the two. Wide open, the 16-35 L II is maybe a tad sharper in the center, but both are still excellent. The main difference is wide open the 16-35 shows much less vignetting, and is sharper in the corners. I don't know if you ever bothered to check it before you sold it, but the 17-40 displays an amazing amount of vignetting wide open, whereas it's confined to the extreme edges and corners of the 16-35 II.
I think the 16-35L II is sharper in the centre wide open, and is very good, givng primes a serious run for their money. But stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller there's not much in it. The 16-35L II will offer a bit better contrast due to it's new coatings, maybe a tad sharper in the corners and does starbursts much better (not sure if that matters to most people).
I had hoped to buy the excellent copy I tested, but the seller couldn't get the lens he was after, so kept it. Now I've bout the 24 TS-E II and will keep my 17-40 for now.
I believe the 16-35 II is a superior newer design. It likely will outperform in the corners, and with less distortion and CA. The differences may be small, but look closely.
I believe the 16-35 II is a superior newer design. It likely will outperform in the corners, and with less distortion and CA. The differences may be small, but look closely.
I've had this same decision to make but have been putting it off as I haven't really needed it yet.
I will have to but the 16-35 II before my next trip as I like to shoot at night and indoors.
The only thing that's holding me back is the big jump in price from the 17-40mm
I had the original 16-35 and was eh...about it. I bought the mark II last year and fell completely in love. Worth the upgrade IMO. The 16-35 II is super sharp.
Personally for me it is huge difference, I did same year ago and no regrets. 16-35L mk II is much better optics based on my copy. Also one of the useful lenses for travel I have.
Some shots from Venice I did in September on 5DmkII:
I had a 17-40...but I don't think it was a good copy. If you look at 16:9, it seems like QC has improved over the last couple of years with this lens. I bought it soon after it came out and wasn't too impressed. My 16-35 mk II is much better. I imagine getting a "good" 17-40 is key. My 16-35 is probably my most used lens.
Whenever I look through my photos, I find that I gravitate towards the ones taken with the 16-35 II. I'm always amazed at the IQ, and I think the zoom range is invaluable.
Unless I'm pixel peeping, I don't notice much of an IQ difference between my 16-35 II and 35L (bokeh is a bit different). It's that good.
Well I hope my copy is a good one, from all hear I think I made the right choice.I to like to shoot nightscapes, and am sure it will be better there, but main use will be landscape in daylight and inside group shots. I will be using it on my FF 1Ds MKII, which I have decided will be my last body. If I get a good copy I think I have my last UAW zoom also. After seeing, Breitling65, pic's I am convinced the reviews I've read about the distotion being terrible are from those who are not experianced in the use of this type of lens. Tomorrow I will know and believe me I will be doing some serious picture taking, ohhhhh the wait!
THANK YOU ALL for your assurance, this was another big ticket item that took some talking to mother to get the green light on!
