16-35 maybe 17-40

[alben]

I am considering one or the other mainly for landscapes, but it could be nice to have f2.8 for the occasional indoor scene, there is a Canon cashback offer in the UK on the 16-35, still more than I would like to pay, but I have learnt in photography you have to pay for quality gear, my other concern is do these lenses vignette at wide angle especially with filters ( Cokin p system ) I would be prepared to upgrade filters over time.

Alan

 

[mrsfotografie]

I have the 17-40 and absolutely love it. It's supposedly better optically than the 16-35. In any case, it's less expensive, lighter and more compact and for landscape you'll stop down plenty anyway.

Vignetting can be (automatically) corrected and I find it to be a non-issue with the 17-40.

 

[ianmacd]

I have the 17-40 and absolutely love it. It's supposedly better optically than the 16-35. In any case, it's less expensive, lighter and more compact and for landscape you'll stop down plenty anyway.

Vignetting can be (automatically) corrected and I find it to be a non-issue with the 17-40.

I think that was before the 16-35 II came out.

Also, the cokin , I believe is only recommended down to 28mm on a full frame body so you may have issues with vignetting with both these on FF at the wide end if you fit a cokin P holder.

 

[wayno]

Cokin P vignettes at about 17 only with the wide angle holder.
Cokin P vignettes poorly on the 24-70 ii with the 82mm thread attachment - I would assume this to be the case with the 16-35 as well, with its 82 thread.
Cokin Z pro works fine on both the 17-40 and the 24-70 ii at all focal lengths. Assume it would also work equally well on the 16-35 with the 82 thread.

 

[alben]

Thanks so far, I do have the wide angle holder and it is nice to know it should be OK down to 17mm, only used it on my 24-105 till now.

Alan

 

[Fotoheus]

You should also consider the Tokina 16-28 2.8. Aperture 2.8 like the 16-35II, same image quality, less distortion, and about same pricecategory as the 17-40. Recommended!

 

[yablonsky]

I have the 17-40 and absolutely love it. It's supposedly better optically than the 16-35. In any case, it's less expensive, lighter and more compact and for landscape you'll stop down plenty anyway.

Vignetting can be (automatically) corrected and I find it to be a non-issue with the 17-40.

+1

good lens for landscape! No need for f2.8.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

Neither lens is known for corner-to-corner sharpness, and both will vignette even without filters. You should, as suggested, take a close look at that Tokina. They make superb ultrawides, though this lens *may* have QC issues. Buy from a place with a generous return policy.

 

[wayno]

(I should clarify my comment re: vignetting with filter holders). Both of the Canon UWA zooms vignette regardless but profile-wise easily corrected in post. The vignetting from the holder is a different kind - physical black shadows that are not correctable and would ordinarily necessitate cropping. Assume this is obvious but thought worth clarifying in light of one of the comments above.

 

[Rocky]

17-40 has the built-in gel filter holder at the back of the lens.

 

[verysimplejason]

not as wide but you can also consider Tamron 19-35. It's dirt cheap but IQ comparable to 17-40. Just be prepared to AFMA though.

 

[pwp]

I had the 17-40 for ten years and it was a great lens, used almost daily. Light, small and sharp as anything else from around f/5.6. Another plus for the 17-40 is that it takes your 77mm filters. The 16-35 f/2.8II is 82mm. Just something to consider in terms of additional expenses.

A month ago I switched to the bigger, heavier, 82mm filtered, more expensive 16-35 f/2.8II and to be honest, I'm not completely sure why. It certainly has commendable centre sharpness at f/2.8, (forget the edges...) that tiny extra 1mm of width and looks shiney and new, but between f/5.6 and f/11 the sharpness is line ball with the 17-40.

On a more subtle level though, there is a quality about the 16-35 f/2.8II vs the 17-40 f/4 that has nothing to do with sharpness, CA or any of the technical measurable stuff...the images just look nicer.

I hope that a new 16-35 f/2.8III is in development; one that will bring the awesome qualities of the new 24-70 f/2.8II to the UWA zoom table. If Canon is in fact shipping a 40+ mp DSLR anytime soon, that camera will punish the current 16-35 f/2.8II. A simultaneous announcement? We'll have to wait and see.

If your budget doesn't stretch to the 16-35 f/2.8II, the 17-40 f/4 will be sure to satisfy, so long as you don't expect stellar wide open performance. It's mushy wide open. But even one click down and it comes alive.

edit: BTW, don't be tempted by a pre-owned 16-35 f/2.8 series I. While there may be OK copies around, they're mostly rubbish and certain to disappoint.

-PW

 

[RS2021]

Neither 16-35 II nor 17-40 are particularly super sharp lenses... Canon struggles with their UWA zooms and I will rate them both at about B+....not at all bad, but not exactly great either.

Keep expectations down and you will be happy

 

[RS2021]

Neither 16-35 II nor 17-40 are particularly super sharp lenses... Canon struggles with their UWA zooms and I will rate them both at about B+....not at all bad, but not exactly great either.

Keep expectations down and you will be happy

Don't get me wrong, I love my 16-35 II...relatively compact, a "good" performer, and very versatile. In balance, it does it for me.

 

[birtembuk]

On a more subtle level though, there is a quality about the 16-35 f/2.8II vs the 17-40 f/4 that has nothing to do with sharpness, CA or any of the technical measurable stuff...the images just look nicer.

Absolutely agree with this ! An aspect too often ignored in favor of sharpness.

Used to have the 10-22 on APS-C. Wanted to love it but didn't use it much though as I was not too fond of the overall rendering. So I thought I wasn't so good using UWA. Then I decided to revisit my position and went for a FF UWA. When reading reviews and opinions, choice between 17-40 and 16-35II is not so straightforward. I borrowed to compare both. For me, my clear conclusion is 16-35II is way better in many aspects and - IMO - I would rate the 17-40 equivalent to the 10-22 : good but not thrilling. Bought one 16-35 II produced in 2012. Love it. Now I can take UWA shots with confidence and be very pleased with them. Even taken at 2.8 and 3600 ISO in dark environment.

My bottom-line is: why bother to lug around kilos of equipment if this is to take pictures that are just a little better than those taken with the last generation of compacts. Buy the best, you won't regret it. And well, you won't be poorer at the end of the year, will you ...

 

[mrsfotografie]

17-40 has the built-in gel filter holder at the back of the lens.

Hey, I never realized that. It's quite an exciting idea, really. Does the 16-35 (II) have this as well?

 

[verysimplejason]

17-40 has the built-in gel filter holder at the back of the lens.

Hey, I never realized that. It's quite an exciting idea, really. Does the 16-35 (II) have this as well?

I don't think it has one.

http://www.lenstip.com/198.3-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Build_quality.html

 

[neuroanatomist]

17-40 has the built-in gel filter holder at the back of the lens.

Hey, I never realized that. It's quite an exciting idea, really. Does the 16-35 (II) have this as well?

No, but the 16-35L MkI, 17-35L, 15 and 8-15L fisheye lenses, and 14L have a rear gel holder.