16-35 2.8ii vs 17-40 for filters and corner sharpness?

[CowGummy]

Hi all,

I've had my 17-40 L f/4 for about 5 years now and was using it on a 400D, and was always very pleased with the lens on the crop body.
About 3 months ago I upgraded to a 5DII and the very lens I thought I was going to love taking over to FF has been a pain in the backside. I like shooting landscapes (among other things) - as wide as possible, but the 17-40 on my 5DII is:

a) too soft in the corners for my liking - even stopped down to f/11
b) too much vignetting in the corners
c) as soon as I put my cokin filters on it, the corners are blacked out, and IQ appears to be even worse in the corners. Filters are important to me - so the blacked out corners are a nightmare as currently I've got to crop so much out that I'm better off with the 24mm end on the 24-105L.

I did know all the above was going to happen, but I just didn't think it was going to affect me the way it has. For what it's worth I'm now shooting landscapes with the 24-105L at the wide end and of course still getting wider view than with my 17-40 on the crop body.

So, I've decided to sell the 17-40 (it's already on ebay - I couldn't take it, the lens just doesn't perform the way I need it to on FF) and want to know if any or all of the above issues might be resolved by getting the 16-35 2.8II instead? Or am I going to have to sell a kidney and get the 14mm f/2.8L II???

Your thoughts are very much appreciated - as always!
Thanks.

[Positron]

a) and b) may be somewhat improved with the 16-35, but c) is likely to get even worse; with that being said, my friend uses Cokin filters on his 17-40 on FF and has never had an issue unless he stacks multiple filters. You could consider a wider (and more expensive) holder if you're unable to get the holder itself clear of the frame. I've also heard of people sawing off the outermost slot to gain additional clearance.

[marekjoz]

Hi all,
(...)
So, I've decided to sell the 17-40 (it's already on ebay - I couldn't take it, the lens just doesn't perform the way I need it to on FF) and want to know if any or all of the above issues might be resolved by getting the 16-35 2.8II instead? Or am I going to have to sell a kidney and get the 14mm f/2.8L II???

Your thoughts are very much appreciated - as always!
Thanks.

I have 17-40 on FF and actually it's soft in corners as well so you didn't have some bad copy, I guess. As I don't have 16-35 one thing I can advise you for sure - do not sell any kidney to get lens. Even L prime

[CowGummy]

Hi all,
(...)
So, I've decided to sell the 17-40 (it's already on ebay - I couldn't take it, the lens just doesn't perform the way I need it to on FF) and want to know if any or all of the above issues might be resolved by getting the 16-35 2.8II instead? Or am I going to have to sell a kidney and get the 14mm f/2.8L II???

Your thoughts are very much appreciated - as always!
Thanks.

I have 17-40 on FF and actually it's soft in corners as well so you didn't have some bad copy, I guess. As I don't have 16-35 one thing I can advise you for sure - do not sell any kidney to get lens. Even L prime

hahaha... yeah, I wouldn't be too sure my kidneys are likely to fetch me much $$$ anyways... Gotta cut back on a couple of vices first! Which would also aid the lens bank...   

[AJ]

They are very close
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=5&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4

14 mm is a while different ball of wax than 17-40.  If you're sure this is your focal length then there's also Samyang/Bower 14/2.8.  It costs one and a half kidneys less than the Canon. 

[neuroanatomist]

Shooting landscapes at f/8-11, at the wide ends the 16-35 II is slightly better in the corners than the 17-40mm, and frankly, the 14mm prime is only slightly better than the 16-35 II (and the 14L has more CA, but less distortion). 

Honestly, if you're looking to unload a kidney for an ultrawide landscape lens, I'd suggest looking at the TS-E 17mm f/4L. It's sharper than any of the above, right out to the corners, and tilt gives you great control over DoF.  The downside (like the 14L) is no screw-in filters (meaning your hands or a couple of Wimberley Plamps to hold them). 

[Seamus]

I love my 17-40 on my crop. I am a little concerned about the corners on a full frame (5diii coming soon!). Do the thin mount filters make much of a difference? I have my doubts about this lens being upgraded anytime soon and the TS-E 17 would be a pricey fix (but an awesome one!).

[marekjoz]

I love my 17-40 on my crop. I am a little concerned about the corners on a full frame (5diii coming soon!). Do the thin mount filters make much of a difference? I have my doubts about this lens being upgraded anytime soon and the TS-E 17 would be a pricey fix (but an awesome one!).

On FF 17-40 requires a thin filter. Here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3729.msg79202.html#msg79202 I have posted en example of how bad it is when NOT having a thin filter.

[neuroanatomist]

I love my 17-40 on my crop. I am a little concerned about the corners on a full frame (5diii coming soon!). Do the thin mount filters make much of a difference? I have my doubts about this lens being upgraded anytime soon and the TS-E 17 would be a pricey fix (but an awesome one!).

On FF 17-40 requires a thin filter. Here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3729.msg79202.html#msg79202 I have posted en example of how bad it is when NOT having a thin filter.

That's a standard CPL filter in your example (which is like two filters stacked), though, and not a regular single filter.  I don't have a 17-40mm to test, but in my testing of the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, a standard filter or slim CPL (5mm thick) doesn't increase vignetting, a standard CPL (8mm for the B+W, not sure for the Murami you tried) increases optical vignetting but does not result in the mechanical vignetting you show, and you start to get mechanical vignetting with anything thicker. 

[Jim K]

Cokin makes a "wide" holder for the 85 filters that only holds a single filter not the normal 3 of their other holder. Costs around $25 at 2filter & B&H. This may help you get down below 24mm on a full frame. Otherwise it looks like the 4" wide filters are the only way out.

I'd work on the filters rather than quiting at 24mm for landscapes.

[yellowkamper]

I have used a 17-40 on a 5D and 5d11 since it came out and yes there is a bit of softness in the corners but DXO or Light room will automatically correct dark corners. As for filters I always use Lee filter for landscapes no problems. I always print 12x16 format so you loose the soft corners. If you want better go for the 17mm TSE with lee filters.
Robin

[Seamus]

Thanks guys,
I'll check it out when my mkiii arrives. Hey Neuro, have you decided between the 1dx and mkiii yet (off topic, but I'm curious)?

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks guys,
I'll check it out when my mkiii arrives. Hey Neuro, have you decided between the 1dx and mkiii yet (off topic, but I'm curious)?

Yep - 1D X, if Canon ever ships the darn thing...

[Seamus]

Tolstoy said "The two most powerful warriors are patience and time", but he wasn't waiting for his new camera...

[Kernuak]

Thin mount CPL filters work fine on the 17-40 with FF, without increased vignetting. I use Lee filters, which are fine, if I only use the single holder, but if I ever need to twist filters in different planes, I can't because the second holder that slides onto the front is visible in frame, even at 24mm. I actually find 17mm to wide for the type of shooting I do on FF and like you I find it soft, so mine is also destined for eBay or somewhere else, as I think I've used it once in the last 12 months and that was for a specific effect, making use of the extreme distortion.