December 20, 2014, 11:45:34 AM

Author Topic: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?  (Read 13241 times)

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2013, 01:50:42 PM »
I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

I've would recommend that the OP should go through the image threads for both the lenses and (i) try to see the difference in IQ; and (ii) decide which lens has "mojo" that you are looking for. 
1DX, 5D3, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 1.4x III, 2x III, 600RT x 4
The grass is always greener when you crank up the saturation in photoshop

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2013, 01:50:42 PM »

Haydn1971

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2013, 02:05:31 PM »
Been out for the first time today with my 16-35 II, it's got the mojo for me on my 6D, more so than the 10-22 on my 450D - really pleased with the results out of the camera
Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M ,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 22mm f2.0, Lensbaby, EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0 lens

Shane1.4

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
    • Shane Long Photography
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2013, 02:24:02 PM »
They both are super sweet. I have the 17-40 on my 5D MKiii and get fabulous results out of the combo. I really like the compact size and weight of it. Here is a recent engagement shot. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=481057235269063&set=a.377560718952049.82074.117631688278288&type=1&theater
5D Mark III, 6D, 135L, 85 1.8, Sigma 50 1.4 Art, Sigma 35 1.4 Art, 17-40L
www.shanelongphotography.com

Shermanstank

  • Guest
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2013, 04:03:23 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 :).

Good to hear!   It's not  for everybody; I am the kind of guy who has the patience to wait and see some magic when I scan the negatives.  =)

gmrza

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2013, 04:44:37 PM »
I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

I've would recommend that the OP should go through the image threads for both the lenses and (i) try to see the difference in IQ; and (ii) decide which lens has "mojo" that you are looking for.

I think that sums it up - if you are shooting primarily landscapes with a tripod or are doing studio work between f/8 and f/11 it probably doesn't matter which lens you buy - you may as well choose the cheaper option which is the 17-40.  If you need to shoot at f/4, the 16-35mm is probably better.  And of course if you want the subject isolation you get with f/2.8 or you want to shoot action, the 16-35 is probably your choice.
Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

BL

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
  • Great gear is good. Good technique is better.
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2013, 05:59:43 PM »
I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option. 
+1.

although sun stars on the 16-35 are more pronounced and punch harder on those smaller apertures which made the choice easy for me (that and i like to shoot handheld at times f4-f5.6, results with which i wasn't as happy with on the 17-40)


M, 5Dc, 1Dx, some lenses, a few lights

expatinasia

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2013, 06:18:25 PM »
Nice picture, BL.

I have the 17-40L and to be very honest, if I could go back in time, I would push my hands a little deeper in my pockets and get the 16-35L. It just gives more options.

Having said that I rarely use my 17-40L as it is not the type of photography I do at all. Still, given the chance I would get the 16-35L.

Sometimes it is difficult to see past the price tag especially when there are so few supposed differences. But, as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.
1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2013, 06:18:25 PM »

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1632
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2013, 06:54:11 PM »
I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

I've would recommend that the OP should go through the image threads for both the lenses and (i) try to see the difference in IQ; and (ii) decide which lens has "mojo" that you are looking for.
I think that sums it up - if you are shooting primarily landscapes with a tripod or are doing studio work between f/8 and f/11 it probably doesn't matter which lens you buy - you may as well choose the cheaper option which is the 17-40.  If you need to shoot at f/4, the 16-35mm is probably better.  And of course if you want the subject isolation you get with f/2.8 or you want to shoot action, the 16-35 is probably your choice.

+1 They're different lenses for different purposes and budgets. If you don't need UWA at f/2.8-4 then save enough for a holiday and get the 17-40. You'll probably do a straight swap $wise for your EFS 10-22.

Mojo?
mo·jo
[moh-joh]
noun, plural mo·jos, mo·joes.
1. the art or practice of casting magic spells; magic; voodoo.
2. an object, as an amulet or charm, that is believed to carry a magic spell.
3. A Cuban seasoning of garlic, olive oil, and sour (Seville) oranges used as a dip, marinade, or sauce.
 
Don't look to your hardware to provide the mojo, that comes from within.

-PW

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2013, 01:01:51 PM »
I own both the 10-22 and 17-40, and whilst I can only speak from experience of using both on a 7D (i.e, a crop camera), I do not believe the 17-40 will give you any 'wow' factor beyond the 10-22 if the 10-22 does not satisfy you. The 10-22 is not a perfect lens but it is a very good lens, and if you were to move up to full frame, the performance of the 17-40 at the wide end may disappoint you more than the 10-22 performance on crop. If I take a step back and look at some of the images I have taken, I don't think I can truthfully say that the performance of the lens was ever the cause of a crap or lacklustre picture. It has more to do with the manner in which I have taken the picture, the settings I have used, and probably most of all, the lighting. I enjoy mainly landscape photography and some of my most 'magical' images came down, purely and simply to the lighting, and being in the right place at the right time to capture it. Some of those images were taken with the 10-22, some were taken with the 17-40, and to me, it was the lighting that made those images, and maybe my composition, not any wow factor of the lens.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 01:03:25 PM by insanitybeard »
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

Ricku

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 494
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2013, 01:32:16 PM »
17-40 vs 16-35 - For landscapes? None of them.

Stick with Samyang 14mm and Zeiss 21mm until Canon gets their act together and gives us a UWA-zoom that is sharp across the frame (like the crazy sharp Nikon 14-24).

BL

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
  • Great gear is good. Good technique is better.
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2013, 01:53:11 PM »
i find my 16-35 II plenty sharp across the frame at f11 for landscapes

how often do you shoot f2.8/f4 for landscapes?  and even then, whats in the center is usually quite good
M, 5Dc, 1Dx, some lenses, a few lights

JPAZ

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
  • If only I knew what I was doing.....
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2013, 02:18:05 PM »
When I was disappointed in the "mojo" of a pic on my 50d with the 10-22, it was usually because of me, not the lens.

Now, when I am disappointed in the "mojo" on my 5d3 with the 17-40, guess what?  Same....guilty as charged.
5d Mkiii; Eos-M; too many lenses; 430 EXii and a whole lot of stuff

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2013, 02:21:24 PM »
I have the 16-35 f/2.8L II lens and I really like it.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2013, 02:21:24 PM »

BL

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
  • Great gear is good. Good technique is better.
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2013, 02:55:22 PM »
actually now that i think about it, i recall the 17-40 performing much better at longer focal lengths.

i dont shoot my 16-35 II at 35mm (between 2.8-5.6) because sharpness takes an unexpected dive after 28mm, which is a shame since i find the bokeh pleasant. 

canon seems to think there's nothing wrong with it when i sent it in...  ???
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 04:12:10 PM by BL »
M, 5Dc, 1Dx, some lenses, a few lights

Aglet

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1088
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2013, 03:56:45 PM »
I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

I've would recommend that the OP should go through the image threads for both the lenses and (i) try to see the difference in IQ; and (ii) decide which lens has "mojo" that you are looking for.

I think that sums it up - if you are shooting primarily landscapes with a tripod or are doing studio work between f/8 and f/11 it probably doesn't matter which lens you buy - you may as well choose the cheaper option which is the 17-40.  If you need to shoot at f/4, the 16-35mm is probably better.  And of course if you want the subject isolation you get with f/2.8 or you want to shoot action, the 16-35 is probably your choice.

+1
I haven't bothered with the 16-35 v1 cuz it's not sharper than the 17-40, v2 looks significantly improved.
I found the 17-40 has really poor corner performance at the wide end, mushy even when stopped down a lot.  Performance varies with subject/focal distance. Seems worse at long landscape distances. But it does have a little more "something" when used on FF compared to the 10-22mm on crop, which I still do use occasionally.
FWIW, you can buy and try a used 17-40L and resell it if you don't like it and probably lose less than the rental cost.

FWIW, I've recently tried (by way of purchase) a new Tokina 17-35mm f/4, hoping to find a lens that performed better at the wide end than the 17-40 f/4 L. (to use on my FF F-mount system)
I've only done some flat-field, close-in test photos and a few other landscape types.

It's the only lens whose FF corner performance, at least on the near flat-field tests, was absolutely abysmal. Pure mush at any f stop.  Real-world images at normal distances were better but still poor corner performance until about 24mm.
Accutance was otherwise quite good in center and border areas and geometric performance was very good, holding straight lines very well with minimal distortion.
However, for the price, I'd not take the Tokina over the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L.
On F-mount it's a cheap enough option to consider.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 11:52:39 PM by Aglet »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2013, 03:56:45 PM »