Rumors > Lenses

16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4

<< < (6/10) > >>

RS2021:
If you can afford the few extra $$$, 16-35II is a no brainer. Just get it.

Also dampen your expectations as both are UWA's and expecting ultra "crisp" images from corner to corner is setting yourself up for a disappointment. These are both great lenses and do their job very well. If you are realistic, either of them will make you happy.

Vivid Color:
Awesome photo, Cinto. Can you tell us more how you made that shot? What settings you used?

Aglet:

--- Quote from: birdman on March 03, 2012, 04:52:37 PM ---The Tokina 17-35/4.0 i supposed to be really solid with nearly ZERO distortion!! to me, it looks close to both of your mentioned lens.
--- End quote ---

I never had the 16-35, have a 17-40 that's for sale.
I found it to be pretty usable at the wide end if stopped down to f/8 or smaller, improving considerably as you move to the long end.
If I used it for landscape work and didn't focus at hyperfocal or closer, my lens was always soft in the corners.  Worked well for indoor and other close-focus material, slightly disappointing if I wanted crisp-to-the-corners large landscape prints.

I got the Tokina 17-35/4 and it's excellent in many ways from 21-35mm but the corners at the wide end are as bad or worse than the 17-40, depending on how you're using it so not much of an improvement, if any, on Canon, but an option in F-mount.

I'm currently trying to put together a wide-zoom kit for Nikon landscape work, minimizing overlap and maximizing performance.  The Tokina 16-35 and 16-28 are both in the running for the mid-range wide-angle zoom with the Nikon 14-24 covering its best from about 14 to 20mm.

pwp:
It was me who started this thread 14 months ago. I had been a staunch defender of the 17-40, and most of that hold true if shooting from f/5.6-11. Last year I switched to the 16-35 f/2.8II and while there is a quality/economy role for the 17-40, the 16-35 f/2.8II does push it aside in a number of subtle, almost unexplainable ways. And so it should!

At the subtle level, now my UWA images just look better. Regardless of aperture. I'm at a loss to explain why. But I'm reaching for the 16-35 a lot more often than I did the 17-40. At a less subtle level, at least I can expect pretty good centre sharpness wide open. That couldn't be said for my copy of the 17-40.

At the end of the day, they're both lenses that will satisfy most shooters UWA needs, and deliver commercial quality results.

-PW

AudioGlenn:

--- Quote from: pwp on April 18, 2013, 01:00:14 AM ---It was me who started this thread 14 months ago. I had been a staunch defender of the 17-40, and most of that hold true if shooting from f/5.6-11. Last year I switched to the 16-35 f/2.8II and while there is a quality/economy role for the 17-40, the 16-35 f/2.8II does push it aside in a number of subtle, almost unexplainable ways. And so it should!

At the subtle level, now my UWA images just look better. Regardless of aperture. I'm at a loss to explain why. But I'm reaching for the 16-35 a lot more often than I did the 17-40. At a less subtle level, at least I can expect pretty good centre sharpness wide open. That couldn't be said for my copy of the 17-40.

At the end of the day, they're both lenses that will satisfy most shooters UWA needs, and deliver commercial quality results.

-PW

--- End quote ---

This is great feedback on both of these lenses.  This is why I'm saving up for the 16-35.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version