September 18, 2014, 12:10:34 AM

Author Topic: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I  (Read 5253 times)

vlim

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« on: November 22, 2012, 10:31:08 AM »
I'm thinking about buying a used WA lens. In your opinion, for almost the same price would you take the 17-40 F/4 L or the 16-35 F/2.8 L I. The 5D mark III would be the body to go with...

canon rumors FORUM

17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« on: November 22, 2012, 10:31:08 AM »

Kristofgss

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2012, 11:23:42 AM »
For the same price, the 16-35 would be the better option. When stopped down to F4, it is as sharp as the 17-40 and you have the advantage of being able to use F2.8 when you want to.

ud4steve

  • Guest
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2012, 04:01:09 AM »
I would say it depends what you'll be doing with it.  Like Kristofgss said having f/2.8 vs f/4 has its advantages but if you're going to be hiking a lot or anything where you'll be carrying your camera, considering the ISO capabilities of the 5D3, I would recommend the 17-40.  At the time I bought mine it was significantly cheaper too, but if it's something I'm going to be carrying all day the lighter weight will help you make better pictures at the end of the day as you won't be as tired.  I love my 17-40 it takes great pictures and its the lens that stays on my camera most of the time.  Good luck with your decision!

Cliclac

  • Guest
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2012, 04:41:27 AM »
According to many test, the 17-40 version is generally better than 16-35. The only reason to choose the 16-35 is if you really need the 2.8 aperture.

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1543
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2012, 05:45:39 AM »
You might glean a few well informed viewpoints from this piece from Luminous Landscape...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

My feelings would be that the 5D3 sensor will punish the old 16-35 f/2.8. It was never a stellar lens at the best of times, performing only adequately on film bodies...let alone FF DSLR. I had one which was a constant disappointment. By contrast, the 17-40 which I have owned since they were announced in 2003 has been consistently excellent, currently spending a lot of time on a 5D3 body. Provided you accept that it can be a bit mushy wide open, keep in perspective that from f/5 it is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II.

If I was in your shoes I'd be going for the 17-40. If you NEED f/2.8 save some more for the 16-35 f/2.8II.

-PW

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 918
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2012, 06:34:59 AM »
You might glean a few well informed viewpoints from this piece from Luminous Landscape...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

My feelings would be that the 5D3 sensor will punish the old 16-35 f/2.8. It was never a stellar lens at the best of times, performing only adequately on film bodies...let alone FF DSLR. I had one which was a constant disappointment. By contrast, the 17-40 which I have owned since they were announced in 2003 has been consistently excellent, currently spending a lot of time on a 5D3 body. Provided you accept that it can be a bit mushy wide open, keep in perspective that from f/5 it is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II.

If I was in your shoes I'd be going for the 17-40. If you NEED f/2.8 save some more for the 16-35 f/2.8II.

-PW

I agree with PW, who brings up all of the very valid, meaningful reasons ...especially if you are comparing the 17-40mm with version one of the 16-35mm.
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

jondave

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2012, 07:11:34 AM »
Go with the 17-40mm. For L standards, the 16-35mm MkI isn't good at all.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2012, 07:11:34 AM »

vlim

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2012, 08:33:56 AM »
Thanks for your advices guys  ;)

so in a close future my photo gear for nature and wildlife picture should be this one :

5D Mark III and 40D
17-40mm F/4 L
100mm macro F/2.8 L IS
70-200mm F/4 L IS
and a tele lens most likely the 400 5.6 L (a new version with IS and Weather sealing is welcome). i just order a 300mm  F/4 L IS 8)
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 11:21:42 AM by vlim »

Camerajah

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2012, 08:43:33 AM »
Trust your eyes,if you can do a comparison shoot with both then make a decision,I like and continue to use my 16-35 L 1-the newer version 2 is sharper from 16- to about 20 mm
Canon bodies and not enough L lenses

verysimplejason

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1345
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr Account
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2012, 08:56:01 AM »

SJTstudios

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2012, 12:19:43 PM »
For the same price, the 16-35 would be the better option. When stopped down to F4, it is as sharp as the 17-40 and you have the advantage of being able to use F2.8 when you want to.
i agree sharpness wise, but the 17-40 beats even the mark ii 16-35 at 5.6+, and the 16-35s have harsh vignetting till f8. i say 17-40, because, you get the newer version, the bokeh on wa isn't really blurry on wa even if so, its f4 vs f2.8, you get 5mm more reach, and with the 5d ii iso, f4 isnt a huge issue

aktivemac

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2012, 06:39:23 AM »
If you're not totally set on your UWA being a zoom, I hear excellent things about the Samyang 14mm prime. Its very cheap and although manual focus/aperture it seems pin sharp even to the corners. Search around for reviews, but seems like a great buy.

I'm in the exact same position as you and after ruling out the canon 14L due to expense, i've been considering the 17-40 & 16-35 (leaning towards the 17-40). But reading up on the Samyang has really made me think whether I need a zoom, given it appears sharper than the 17-40 across the piece.

Food for thought anyway.

Richard.

robbymack

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2012, 11:48:08 AM »
Im actually looking at similar options, but I've already ruled out both versions of the 16-35 as I really see a need for f2.8 in a WA lens, especially when I think most of my shots with this lens will probably be f8 or higher.  I have a 24-70 2.8 when I need somewhat wide and fast.  I'm interested in the samyang too, probably should see if I can rent both for a week or so and see what seems to work best. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2012, 11:48:08 AM »

Bud Spencer

  • Guest
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2012, 04:57:14 PM »
Image quality is a very complex matter way beyond sharpness figures. Online forums and print media are focussing on sharpness because it is easy to measure and to judge. If You go really wide angle, You'll often very likely find the sun within your frame. Here the 17-40L shines, with much better flare resistance than the 16-35L1 and even L2. Find yourself a good copy and try to attach the more efficient & elegant EW-83H lens hood (19-40mm). When bought new, You can even send your cam + lens to Canon to match them together (calibration).

As an alternative approach, one could try out prime lenses like the "king of sharpness and clarity" Olympus OM 2.8/24 MC, the old EF 2.8/24 is no slouch either and easily holds it's own compared to the 17-40L. The old primes EF 2/35 and EF 1.8/50 are much sharper then the 17-40L. Even the EF 2.8/20 USM is way better then it's webutation, and the Tokina ATX 3.5/17 is all but a hidden secret. Why prime lenses?

Prime lenses have less elements, thus less flare issues and are much more reliable when it comes to repetitive accuracy, they're simply solid partners and worth a second thought. You're much better off zooming by your own feet instead of using a 16-elements-in-11-groups-alignment-nightmare. Well, mostly.

Just my tuppence.

Regards, Bud
 ;)

jhanken

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2012, 05:35:59 PM »
Quote
I'm thinking about buying a used WA lens. In your opinion, for almost the same price would you take the 17-40 F/4 L or the 16-35 F/2.8 L I. The 5D mark III would be the body to go with...

This seems like an odd hypothetical to me in that the used 16-35s sell for about double what the 17-40mm sells for:

16-35mm
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=canon+16-35mm+ii&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1

17-40mm
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=canon+17-40mm&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1

For my money, the 17-40 is nearing the top of my kit wish list as a great value.
5DIII, 60D, 24-105mm f/4 L, 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4A, Jupiter-9 85mm f/2

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2012, 05:35:59 PM »