September 19, 2014, 04:08:41 AM

Author Topic: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?  (Read 12334 times)

yablonsky

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2013, 04:26:45 AM »
The 17-40 was my first lens on the 350D. The kit lens went to the trash bin. Later I used the 17-40 on my 50D.
But I was looking for more wide angle. So I bought the 10-22. This was really a disappointing lens after the 17-40! I sold it 3 weeks later because of missing contrast, distortion and CAs. So in order to get more wide angle I bought the 5D mark II. And wow, the 17-40 on FF is great! I still have it and love it.
5D2, 17-40 4L, 24-70 2.8L II, 70-200 4L IS,  300 4L IS

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2013, 04:26:45 AM »

Rav

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2013, 05:08:40 AM »
Of the lenses I own the 17-40 was initially the biggest disappointment. Not because of the optical quality, but because I struggled to make good use of it. UWAs tend to make us take pictures that have nothing going for them except the UWA effect. Eventually I overcame this and now I like the lens, great tool if the situation calls for it. Except for the extreme corner performance I'd call the optical quality very good. The flare resistance is also impressive.
5DII, 17-40 4L, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 4L IS, 100 2.8, 50 1.8 II

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4529
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #32 on: January 24, 2013, 06:11:19 AM »
UWAs tend to make us take pictures that have nothing going for them except the UWA effect.

That's why I didn't buy the more expensive 16-35L, I doubt I'll use the 17-24 range that much except for macro once I get a 24-70 lens. But looking at event shots, I figured that it is important to have at least *some* uwa lens because you cannot stitch pictures like with landscape nor move out if you're with the back to a wall or a street.

Currently I like the 17-40L as a sturdy standard zoom on crop and will eventually keep doing so with my 70-300L on a ff body to skip changing lenses.

angox

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #33 on: January 24, 2013, 10:03:52 AM »
I've owned the 17-40 for 1.5 years, and I think it does the job. I'm not quite sure about mojo in UWA - which, if I had to say, I would assume it to be overall technical excellence (i.e. sharpness across the frame, micro-contrast, colour, distortion, etc.). IMO, unlike fast telephoto, where you can like a lens independently from the technical specs due to its "magic look", UWA is really dependent on technical specs.

Anyway I was considering these two lens back then, but after some testing, the only determinant factors for me were aperture and price. Will you shoot at 2.8 a lot? Perhaps lot of low light work, environmental portrait? How much would you like to spare for UWA?

If you seek for the best quality, then primes (TS lenses especially) are really good.

Now I mainly use it at f8-f14 for landscape and travel with tripod. And so far, I've been satisfied with the lens.

Some samples:


07APR12 - Ruins to the Dom 3 by angox, on Flickr


[EXPLORE 10.11.2012] Venice 2 by angox, on Flickr

spinworkxroy

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #34 on: January 24, 2013, 11:48:34 AM »
Personally, i do own the 17-40 but i also own the 24-70 II, and comparing both lenses at 24/35/40 at f8 and above, the 17-40 just doesn't keep up with the 24-70…even at f2.8, it's sharper than the 17-40 at f8.

i find the only real benefit is having the 17-23 range and almost all the time you can get away with that by moving back a little.

Before i had the 24-70, i used the 17-40 alot, not only for landscapes but also for street…but now, i've not touched it in a long time..

So if someone had the $ to burn for a 16-35, i would say why not just go for the 24-70II instead…it's definately going to be sharper and better..IF you can live without the UWA range..i'm personally finding i'm not missing the below 24mm range…i would rather trade that for a better overall lens

Caps18

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #35 on: January 24, 2013, 11:51:44 AM »
I love my 16-35.  And I do shoot quite a bit at f/2.8 when the lighting conditions aren't the best.

If the 17-40 was a f/2.8, then I would have had a harder choice.

I find that for landscapes, the 16mm on a full frame camera is very good.
5D mark 2, 16-35mm f/2.8, 17mm TS-E f/4, 85mm f/1.8, 300mm f/4 + 1.4x, 580 EX Flash

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4529
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2013, 11:54:53 AM »
i find the only real benefit is having the 17-23 range and almost all the time you can get away with that by moving back a little.

You make it sound like a little difference, but imho esp. on ff 17-23 is quite a lot. Stepping back is not always possible and most importantly you can only get the uwa look with a real uwa lens, esp. when the object is very near (some people even consider 24-70 "boring").

Edit: The main reason for me getting the uaw was observing a wedding shooting, and the large group was standing on 2-3 steps in a wide angle was outside the church, the photog was with his back to parked cars and the street. If he hadn't had the uwa lens, he'd couldn't have taken this group shot.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 12:01:19 PM by Marsu42 »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2013, 11:54:53 AM »

RS2021

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2013, 12:15:12 PM »
Both lenses come to life in the hands of the right photographer...

Being wide angle lenses, neither of them are for the pixel peeping crowd... I have seen some striking photographs made with both these lenses...here is a recent one I came across on flicker.  The obvious distortion IMHO actually vastly helps the mood of this picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/91499534@N00/8403207353/#sizes/c/

Edit: Just noticed in the EXIF this was with the older version of 16-35...apparently version II corrects some of this... so perhaps it is just as well he used the older version. :) ISO 2500 noise and pretty slow speed of 1/15th on a non stablized lens...not bad I think.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 12:39:41 PM by Ray2021 »
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2013, 12:15:12 PM »