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

[crasher8]

After owning 2 17-40's and having the 16-35 for the past 2 weeks I can tell you I either have a great copy or these reviews that say these two lens aren't very different stopped down is rubbish. The color rendition, contrast and flare control are far superior in the 16-35. I'm happy.

[enice128]

After owning 2 17-40's and having the 16-35 for the past 2 weeks I can tell you I either have a great copy or these reviews that say these two lens aren't very different stopped down is rubbish. The color rendition, contrast and flare control are far superior in the 16-35. I'm happy.

Thats what i like to hear! Not to take anything away from the 17-40 though!

[ddashti]

As you may have already read previously, the key points to the 16-35 II are the extra stop of light, and the slightly lesser softness towards the edges.
At f/11 and f/13, the 16-35 II performs slightly better (not a big difference) than the 17-40 in most cases.
If you need the extra stop of light and money isn't an issue, the 16-35 II screams "get me." If you're on a budget and the extra stop doesn't matter (if you're primarily shooting in daylight), then the 17-40 would be the suitable choice.

[enice128]

I rarely ever shoot that narrow. I usually like to utilize a lens for what its meant to be used for. For example, my 50 1.2 I mostly use at 1.2 but ill close down to 2.8, f4 or 5.6 for groups of people. Maybe slightly higher for larger groups but that's it. Unless all people in shot r of same importance I love that shallow DOF! I also love shooting in low light with or without my 580exII so this one xtra stop of light is huge for me. Even with my speed light Ill prob be able to lower my ISO. I dont feel like waiting for the 14-24, IF it even comes out along w it's high price point & probably gonna be too wide to shoot people. And w rebates ending tomorrow I might as well pull the trigger!

[Cinto]

I do a lot of city shots at night, I can tell you that the 17-40 has the best flare control of any lens I've ever used. Both for controlling artifacts and veiling flare. If your looking for resolution mostly, I'd look at the Tokina 16-28. I tried the 16-35 II and found it wasn't as good in contra light as the 17-40 and not as sharp as the Tokina, but it was second best at both.

[insanitybeard]

Cinto, that is a great picture! 

[Marsu42]

The downside to the 16-35 II is the 82mm filter thread, but hey, at least it matches the new 24-70!

The good news is that the lens cap (either the aps-c compatible ew-83j or the ff ew-83e) are large enough to take 82mm filters with a step-up adapter, so that didn't prevent me from buying the 17-40L even though I'll also buy a 82mm 24-70 lens and thus have the large filters.

[alexanderferdinand]

@ Cinto: love the picture!

[serendipidy]

Cinto, that is a great picture! 

+100

[pedro]

Take it from me.  I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2006 and have owned two 16-35 2.8 IIs, and probably half a dozen 17-40Ls over time shot on full frame 5D mark I and Mark II bodies as well as Rebels and a 40D.

The 17-40L and 16-35LII are optically Canon's best ultra-wide zooms.  They both perform equally as far as sharpness goes and both look identical stopped down.  (the photo on the front page of my site was shot with the 17-40 and 5D2 and even at 1900 px wide, that image is super sharp corner to corner.  Shot at F/22 too!

The 16-35 Mark II  shines obviously in low light and wide open is SUPER SUPER sharp in the center (excellent for casual/fun portraits) it's just a JOY to use in ALL situations whereas the 17-40L is a joy to use in SOME situations.  the 17-40L is softish wide open especially in the corners.  the 16-35LII shows excellent center sharpness wide open and good in the corners. 

Is it worth the extra 7-800 bucks?  YES YES YES.  I am so happy with my 16-35L II and it's going to stay with me likely forever.

Thanks a lot for this mini field review. Although my signature still says something else, reading these things I can imagine to go for the 16-35 instead of waiting on a phantom. As I do low light photography wide open,  your experience is crucial for me. So I better burn an additional US $ 280.00 for a 10 stop ND filter instead of a 1000 more for a highly priced WA-zoom that doesn't even exist  Your insightful post is highly appreciated. Cheers, Pedro.

[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]

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.

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]

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

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