November 26, 2014, 06:39:44 AM

Author Topic: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4  (Read 45235 times)

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 5108
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2013, 04:02:21 AM »
This is great feedback on both of these lenses.  This is why I'm saving up for the 16-35.

As usual, "more expensive is better" applies here, though as far as I read it not for f8-f11 landscape shots. If you use uwa a lot, the 16-35 might be the better choice, but often it'll be used in a combo with a 24-70 lens - and then it gets more difficult: 16-35+cheap 24-70 or 17-40+expensive 24-70? That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2013, 04:02:21 AM »

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2013, 06:10:45 AM »
As usual, "more expensive is better" applies here, though as far as I read it not for f8-f11 landscape shots. If you use uwa a lot, the 16-35 might be the better choice, but often it'll be used in a combo with a 24-70 lens - and then it gets more difficult: 16-35+cheap 24-70 or 17-40+expensive 24-70? That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.

I use the 17-40 on crop as well, as my general purpose lens. Well built, sealed and performs well, and used on a crop body it's not suffering the same drop off in resolution or vignetting at the corners as it does on a FF body at the wide end, wide open!
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 06:13:04 AM by insanitybeard »
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

shutterwideshut

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
  • IR and Long Exposure junkie
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2013, 08:02:17 AM »
That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.

Well said! I'm also happy with the 17-40 lens. At f/8-f/16, it is no lemon.  ;)
My Flickr
5D3 ı 7D ı 50D(IR) ı 20D(IR) ı TS-E24 f/3.5L II ı 17-40 f/4L ı 24-70 f/2.8L II ı 70-200 f/4L IS ı 100 f/2.8L  Macro IS ı 40 f/2.8 ı 50 f/1.4 ı 85 f/1.8 ı 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 ı Lensbaby Composer Pro ı Rokinon 8mm ı 600EX-RT/ST-E3-RT

killswitch

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2013, 08:36:09 AM »
Had a question regarding the 16-35 and vignetting. Anyone tried using the B+W 82mm 3.0 ND MRC filter on this lens. Since this is not the XS-Pro version, I was wondering if vignetting will be an an issue when using this particular filter with the lens stopped down?

kraats

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2013, 08:40:29 PM »
16-35 II is by far the best. No spint. It is tag sharp drom corner to corner.

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1615
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2013, 10:43:28 PM »
16-35 II is by far the best. No spint. It is tag sharp from corner to corner.
Even at f/2.8? If so you must have an awesome copy.

-PW

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 5108
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2013, 06:26:28 AM »
and used on a crop body it's not suffering the same drop off in resolution or vignetting at the corners as it does on a FF body at the wide end, wide open!

... only that correcting vignetting in post is really easy and with no problems unless the vignette was -3ev, but you cannot raise sharpness in post (yet :-)). As for the much discussed corner sharpness, well, I haven't got a ff body (again: yet :-p) but looking at my current shots it doesn't really matter.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2013, 06:26:28 AM »

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2013, 04:10:04 PM »
Does anyone have any experience with the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 FX on Full Frame that they could share?  Looks to be quite capable and fairly on par with the 16-35mm but just not sure.  I do a lot of paid, indoor Real Estate photography and previously used a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.i with image stabilization on my 7D with outstanding results but didn't love the fit and finish of the lens compared with my L glass. 

I'm now shooting my interiors with my 5D3 and being FF it's a different beast altogether for UWA lenses.  So I'm not sure if I should just fork out the extra $$ for the 16-35mm II or get the Tokina 16-28m, which doesn't accept filters either, if I want to jump to some landscape work with it...

Thanks, I value your opinions and especially any experience you may have with this newer Tokina lens.

All the best!  :D
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2013, 05:40:28 PM »
As usual, "more expensive is better" applies here, though as far as I read it not for f8-f11 landscape shots. If you use uwa a lot, the 16-35 might be the better choice, but often it'll be used in a combo with a 24-70 lens - and then it gets more difficult: 16-35+cheap 24-70 or 17-40+expensive 24-70? That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.

I use the 17-40 on crop as well, as my general purpose lens. Well built, sealed and performs well, and used on a crop body it's not suffering the same drop off in resolution or vignetting at the corners as it does on a FF body at the wide end, wide open!
When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2013, 04:59:43 AM »
When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.

This is why when I eventually go full frame I'll also need to get a better wide angle zoom than the 17-40 I already own, otherwise I could just get a 6D and be done with it. I'm not saying you can't get decent ultrawide shots with the 17-40 on full frame, but especially for landscape use, seeing how the corner resolution falls off even using it on a crop body, I can only imagine how it would be on full frame. Interestingly this is more apparent to me for landscape work at infinity focus than it is for closer subjects. For this reason I am interested to see what becomes of the rumour rumor that Canon may have a new ultrawide zoom coming to market sometime in the medium term future.
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

alexanderferdinand

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 448
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #40 on: June 24, 2013, 06:30:23 AM »
@ Krkb78:
tested the 17-40 for a weekend, soft (= unsharp) + horrible CAs.
No.
Had the 16-35/2,8II for more then a year. Never sharp corners. Even at f8.
Didn't like it. Was usable on the 1d4, but FF: sigh....
Bad luck?

Bought my first non- Canon lens. Tokina 16-28/2,8.
Own it for 2 years.
Now I am happy. I have read a lot about varying quality, so it seems this time I had good luck.
Sharp from 2.8 on, corners good, corners excellent from 5.6 up.
Never saw this on the 16-35/II....

Be aware of that. It is heavier too. Has only 16-28mm.
I am also not sharing Neuroanatomists opinion, that a bulb- like front needs more loving care in developing.

I recommend to test a copy before you buy.

1D MKIV, 5DMk III, lot of lenses, flashes etc
Fuji X100s, Sony RX100 III,
Fuji X- E2, XF 23 1,4, XF 18- 55 2,8-4

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #41 on: June 25, 2013, 01:35:52 AM »
@ Krkb78:
tested the 17-40 for a weekend, soft (= unsharp) + horrible CAs.
No.
Had the 16-35/2,8II for more then a year. Never sharp corners. Even at f8.
Didn't like it. Was usable on the 1d4, but FF: sigh....
Bad luck?

Bought my first non- Canon lens. Tokina 16-28/2,8.
Own it for 2 years.
Now I am happy. I have read a lot about varying quality, so it seems this time I had good luck.
Sharp from 2.8 on, corners good, corners excellent from 5.6 up.
Never saw this on the 16-35/II....

Be aware of that. It is heavier too. Has only 16-28mm.
I am also not sharing Neuroanatomists opinion, that a bulb- like front needs more loving care in developing.

I recommend to test a copy before you buy.
Thanks Alex, I checked it out and I like it.  Seems like a perfect option for my 5d MkIII.  I've ordered one and it's on the way, should have it by Thursday!

The one I tried was just like you said, quite impressive really.  I noticed less distortion at 16mm too.  As far as the bulbous front lens, I see that there are two filter systems out there that will work with this lens, should I need to use in that manner. 

I don't plan on doing a lot of landscape work with it, although I can see taking it along on some wedding and event work.  I'll likely use the 24-70mm f/2.8 for landscape work, I like the 24mm end for that...

Thank you again!
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

Act444

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #42 on: June 25, 2013, 07:14:31 PM »
When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.

This is why when I eventually go full frame I'll also need to get a better wide angle zoom than the 17-40 I already own, otherwise I could just get a 6D and be done with it. I'm not saying you can't get decent ultrawide shots with the 17-40 on full frame, but especially for landscape use, seeing how the corner resolution falls off even using it on a crop body, I can only imagine how it would be on full frame. Interestingly this is more apparent to me for landscape work at infinity focus than it is for closer subjects.

YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 07:18:00 PM by Act444 »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #42 on: June 25, 2013, 07:14:31 PM »

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2013, 05:14:56 AM »
YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.

Interestingly, and I admit my knowledge is limited on this, lens resolution/performance can vary with focusing/subject distance, and annoyingly this factor is rarely mentioned or tested by many lens testing sites. My 17-40 and EF-S 10-22 are both similar in this regard on the 7D, at close distances even to the edges of the frame the sharpness is pretty good, but for infinity subjects at the corner of the frame it's a different matter. Obviously, factors such as CA, field curvature and astigmatism have a part to play, and resolving fine detail on small and distant subjects is always going to be a bigger test of a lens than closer subjects.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 05:16:47 AM by insanitybeard »
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2013, 09:01:19 PM »
YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.

Interestingly, and I admit my knowledge is limited on this, lens resolution/performance can vary with focusing/subject distance, and annoyingly this factor is rarely mentioned or tested by many lens testing sites. My 17-40 and EF-S 10-22 are both similar in this regard on the 7D, at close distances even to the edges of the frame the sharpness is pretty good, but for infinity subjects at the corner of the frame it's a different matter. Obviously, factors such as CA, field curvature and astigmatism have a part to play, and resolving fine detail on small and distant subjects is always going to be a bigger test of a lens than closer subjects.
It's always going to be better on an APS-C body like the 7D over a full frame body...
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2013, 09:01:19 PM »