August 29, 2014, 02:06:13 PM

Author Topic: 16-35 I vs. 17-40  (Read 4283 times)

Jim Saunders

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
    • View Profile
16-35 I vs. 17-40
« on: September 01, 2013, 05:10:56 PM »
Any thoughts?  I have a line on a 16-35 I that I can't ignore.  I process everything through LR5.  The 16-35 II is an option but for half the price I don't see how I lose much.

Jim
I'd probably do better to invest more time and less money.

canon rumors FORUM

16-35 I vs. 17-40
« on: September 01, 2013, 05:10:56 PM »

camerabug

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • 1D Mark IV
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2013, 05:56:53 PM »
There is good discussion in this thread for the 16-35

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15319.0

Also check out Justin's review here.

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/
1D Mk IV |  EF 500mm F4  L I | EF 70-300mm F4/5.6 L | EF 70-200 F2.8 L II | EF 24-70 F2.8 L II | EF 16-35mm F2.8 L II | EF 50mm F1.8 II |  2x 600EX-RT | Gitzo 3530LS

wayno

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2013, 06:02:11 PM »
I believe the 17-40 is superior to the 16-35 version 1. The 17-40 is also supposedly very much in the same ballpark as the 16-35 II, with the exception of the stop and a fraction more wide angle.

Jim Saunders

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2013, 06:04:00 PM »
There is good discussion in this thread for the 16-35

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15319.0

Also check out Justin's review here.

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/

I appreciate it, but both of those revolve around the version II lens; I've tried one and liked it but so far I don't have a compelling reason to spend twice the money on one.

Jim
I'd probably do better to invest more time and less money.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13959
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2013, 06:09:07 PM »
I'd say 16-35 II > 17-40 > 16-35 I.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

JumboShrimp

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2013, 06:14:57 PM »
Stick with the 17-40. I have one and it is a workhorse.

monkeyhand

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2013, 06:18:38 PM »
Do you need the extra stop?  Also consider what you'll do if it breaks and no one has the parts for an out of production lens.
5DII, 100 2.8, MP-E 65, 50 1.4, 28 2.8 IS, 17-40L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2013, 06:18:38 PM »

wayno

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2013, 06:20:12 PM »
Stick with the 17-40. I have one and it is a workhorse.

Agree. Excellent lens for the price. Hardly use it at f4. If I did I'd probably consider the 16-35 II.

Jim Saunders

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2013, 06:37:16 PM »
Do you need the extra stop?  Also consider what you'll do if it breaks and no one has the parts for an out of production lens.

Good point, among others; I have a line on a 17-40 too, if I miss that I'll consider how badly I need that extra stop.  Thanks for all the input!

Jim
I'd probably do better to invest more time and less money.

Harv

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
    • My SmugMug Web Location
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2013, 08:24:51 PM »
Just to shore up what others have said, I owned both lenses.  I sold the 16-35 and kept the 17-40.  I found it to be noticeably sharper than the copy of the 16-35 I had.

Personally, I think the 17-40 is probably the best 'L' bargain out there.
Looking at life through a 1D4 and a 5D3 plus lots of red rings.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1816
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2013, 09:15:48 PM »
It's not exactly what you asked but still interesting (16-35 2.8 I vs. 16-35 2.8 II)

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/16-35/index.htm

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2013, 10:03:02 PM »
Any thoughts?  I have a line on a 16-35 I that I can't ignore.  I process everything through LR5.  The 16-35 II is an option but for half the price I don't see how I lose much.
Jim, you could lose a lot. The 16-35 f/2.8I is, ahem, a piece of shirt...The 17-40 is far better in most respects.

I recently switched from a 17-40 to a 16-35II. It's a better lens but not by much. After f/5.6 there is not much between them. At f/4 the 17-40 is barely adequate in the center and rubbish at the edges, but improves enormously with a couple of clicks down. The 16-35II is also barely adequate in the center wide open, but even one click down lifts the game to useful commercial quality. None of them can be described as stellar.

Seriously, avoid the 16-35I...it's almost certain to disappoint. Some fortunate photographer may post that they have good copies. They're either in a very lucky minority, they are deluding themselves or are content with mushy files.

BTW be aware that the 16-35II is big and heavy and requires 82mm filters.

-PW

Jim Saunders

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2013, 10:06:39 PM »
Any thoughts?  I have a line on a 16-35 I that I can't ignore.  I process everything through LR5.  The 16-35 II is an option but for half the price I don't see how I lose much.
Jim, you could lose a lot. The 16-35 f/2.8I is, ahem, a piece of shirt...The 17-40 is far better in most respects.

BTW be aware that the 16-35II is big and heavy and requires 82mm filters.

-PW

Thanks for the input.  I rented a 16-35 II and liked it just fine, I'm just not sure I want to spend that kind of money when a 17-40 looks like most of the performance for half the money.

Jim
I'd probably do better to invest more time and less money.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2013, 10:06:39 PM »

Jim Saunders

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2013, 10:27:51 PM »
For I at least the question is now answered; I got a great deal on a 17-40, and if I really need that extra stop in the future then I'll worry about spending an awful lot more money.  Thanks for all the insight!

Jim
I'd probably do better to invest more time and less money.

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2263
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2013, 10:42:59 PM »
I  don't have a horse in the race,  but I'm surprised at how disrespected the original 16-35  is.   I'm also surprised at how respected the 17-40 is.  I learn something new everyday.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100 f/2.8L->85mm f/1.8 USM->135L -> 8mm ->100L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2013, 10:42:59 PM »