September 30, 2014, 04:12:49 PM

Author Topic: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?  (Read 12437 times)

birtembuk

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« on: January 12, 2013, 10:22:42 AM »
Yep, I know there’s been lots of post on these two. Yet, since there’s not much new equipment announcements to make us quarrel lately, thanks to the community to kindly share the experience.

I still have the 10-22 to use on 60D. It’s sharp, yes. And I know lots of people swear by it. Personal opinion here, I find the pictures to be dull somehow, lacking depth or texture.  So, imo and in short, 10-22 is certainly very capable but has no mojo !

For me, lenses like 35L or 85/II have mojo. Lot of it. Wow effet. Beyond words. With these two guys, I sometimes happen, with all settings to zero, to just convert to jpeg without any adjustment. In prints, the oomph effect is even more obvious than with pictures viewed on comp screens (downsized to 2 MB isn’t it). 
 
Now, tried to love it but I’m going to sell the 10-22. So the question is, for 5D3, 17-40 or 16-35 ? Been reading every possible review, understand the pros and cons of each but I’m still wondering which one has the mojo – if one has any. It’s not for the 600 buck difference. It’s just no-nonsense decision. In reviews, it’s all about sharpness. There’s some on distortion and CA but that’s about it. Most conclude that if you don’t need the extra stop for low light, the extra mil and do mainly landscape at f8+, they both deliver the same result. I can read charts and can conclude that by myself, thank you. No word on the wow effect. No word on the lens mojo ! And you never know by how much, pictures seen on the net have been touched- up or altered. 
 
So, will someone having or having used both lenses kindly share the experience and give advice/opinion on this delicate mojo subject, with some pics if possible ? I’d be delighted to be enlighted.

canon rumors FORUM

17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« on: January 12, 2013, 10:22:42 AM »

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1348
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2013, 11:50:58 AM »
If the 10-22 does not have mojo, then neither will the 16-35 or 17-40.  I find the 16-35 to be similar to the 10-22.  If mojo is associated with subject isolation, then you might want to look at the 24L II instead.  It's wide enough for most applications and faster than the zooms you're considering, which will help with isolation.

Botts

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2013, 03:52:43 PM »
If the OP does want to purchase a 17-40mm, I have heard of problems until Canon "updated" them, or fixed the production line.

Does anyone know when this fix occurred?
6D, Sigma 35/1.4, 40STM, 50/1.4, 70-200/4 IS, 430ex II
T2i, 17-55/2.8 IS, 270ex

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 933
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2013, 05:05:35 PM »
I choose the super sharp, fast focusing Canon 14-24mm f/2.8L !     ::).
(Well...maybe next year?)
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.....

RS2021

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2013, 05:28:56 PM »
I choose the super sharp, fast focusing Canon 14-24mm f/2.8L !     ::).
(Well...maybe next year?)

I think it would be a very long wait :D
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2013, 05:32:12 PM »

.
"Mojo" is a dangerous thing.

Your mojo may not be my mojo.

Advice: Rent a 17-40. If it gets you off, buy one. If it doesn't, rent a 16-35. If it gets you off, buy one. If it doesn't, maybe you need to redefine your mojo.
Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

robbymack

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2013, 05:37:03 PM »
I think if your waiting for wow with a canon uw zoom and If the 10-22 wasn't doing it for you then I don't think the 17-40 or 16-35 will do it for you either. So if that's the case and you want/need a ff uw zoom save some cash and buy a 17-40.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2013, 05:37:03 PM »

pedro

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 776
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2013, 05:42:52 PM »

.
"Mojo" is a dangerous thing.

Your mojo may not be my mojo.

Advice: Rent a 17-40. If it gets you off, buy one. If it doesn't, rent a 16-35. If it gets you off, buy one. If it doesn't, maybe you need to redefine your mojo.
Sound advice.
30D, EF-S 10-22/ 5DIII, 16-35 F/2.8 L USM II, 28 F/2.8, 50 F/1.4, 85 F/1.8, 70-200 F/2.8 classic,
join me at http://www.flickr.com/groups/insane_isos/

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2013, 05:50:45 PM »
The 17-40 has no mojo. The 16-35? Well I hope it does because I'm buying one next week. As for the 10-22….it did have mojo for me with the T2i and 7D, in fact it was my favorite lens while using a crop, even more than my L lenses.

Shermanstank

  • Guest
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2013, 06:14:56 PM »
the 17-40 f/4 is a tool. It takes great pictures. I love mine for sure. :)

Taken with a Canon EOS 1V-HS  Fuji 400H



BROOKLYNBRIDGEPARK#14 by TheShermansTank, on Flickr

docholliday

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2013, 06:44:44 PM »
If you want a lens for it's "mojo", then get a Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE. There's mucho mojo in that...haven't used the 16-35/2.8L II since, except when I need it wider than 21. You could always do the 15-18-21 ZE setup and get tons of mojo.

If you want manual mojo, got 17TS-E and 24 TS-E II.

Owned the 17-40/4L, 17-35/2.8L, 16-35/2.8L and now the 16-35/2.8L II. The most wow I've seen is from the new version II. However - my Hasselblad SWC/M 38 Biogon puts out more wow. And, of course the microcontrast and dimensionalism on the 21/2.8 ZE is a whole new world. The 17-35 had the least and the 17-40/4L was just plain boring. My 24 TS-E v1 was much better, even if wasn't as wide.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 06:49:46 PM by docholliday »

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2582
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2013, 10:08:20 PM »
the 17-40 f/4 is a tool. It takes great pictures. I love mine for sure. :)

Taken with a Canon EOS 1V-HS  Fuji 400H



BROOKLYNBRIDGEPARK#14 by TheShermansTank, on Flickr

You're making me long for the film days again...

Oh wait!  I still have my EOS-3!  You're just the person to get me back out shooting film for fun again :).
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8747
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2013, 01:01:04 PM »
The photographer is going to make 99% of the difference to the image, maybe more, so the remaining 1% is what you are dealing with, no matter what lens you buy.
I could never really warm up to the 17-40mmL even thouugh it was a fine lens and sharp.  I recently bought a new 16-35mmL, but do not yet have enough experience with it to pass judgement.  Overall, I just don't seem to like ultra wide.  From what I've seen, the new Zeiss 15mm might change my opinion, but I can't afford it for the very few ultrawide images I take.  I did buy a Rokinon 14mm and found it to be worse than a Coke bottle.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2013, 01:01:04 PM »

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 933
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2013, 01:21:16 PM »
I choose the super sharp, fast focusing Canon 14-24mm f/2.8L !     ::).
(Well...maybe next year?)

I think it would be a very long wait :D

Or...it could be 2moro.  8)
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.....

christianronnel

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2013, 01:30:26 PM »
Here's a flickr stream of my friend.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/35788721@N03/

She primarily uses the 16-35LII so most photos are taken with that lens.  She also hates photoshop or post processing so she uses a lot of filters to get the image right out of the camera.  You decide for yourself, does it have the "mojo" you're looking for?

I just ordered that lens.  It was supposed to be here last Friday but UPS made a wrong turn and tried to knock from the backdoor.  Now, I'm spending my time on the forum instead of shooting outside (not because I'm sick)

edit: forgot the link
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 01:56:23 PM by christianronnel »
Don't take life too seriously; no one makes it out alive anyway

EOS 5D mark III | EOS 7D | EF16-35mm f2.8L II | EF24-70mm f2.8L II | EF70-200mm f2.8L IS II | EF70-300mm f4-5.6L IS | EF40mm f2.8 STM | EF50mm f1.4 | EF85mm f1.8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2013, 01:30:26 PM »