Upgrade from 17-40 f4 to 16-35 f4 IS?

[SUNDOG04]

I am curious if anyone has replaced their 17-40 f4 with the 16-35 F4 IS lens?

Do you feel it is worth the extra money to upgrade? There is where I am having trouble. Even with current rebates, it is still a fairly expensive lens. I do have a 24 2.8 IS lens and love the IS. I use a tripod frequently but still find the IS very useful at times when I don't want the burden of hiking with a tripod. The 17-40 is good lens, could be sharper, especially at edges and wider apetures but this 16-35 lens is very appealing with its sharpness and IS.

I use a 6D, and a RRS tripod, so I am serious about sharp photos.

 

[slclick]

I have owned the 17-40, 16-35 2.8 Mk2 and the 16-35 f/4 L (2 copies) The f/4L is by far the best of these 3. Corner to corner sharpness, center sharpness, color rendition, contrast...all beat the other two. Better with pincushioning and vignetting as well. Now...that said, it's no 16-35 mk3...that's a stellar piece of glass in a class by itself.

The 16-35 f/4 is easy to find at a great price as well, CPSW has an awesome Street Price right now.

 

[Arty]

Whether or not it is worth an upgrade depends on your needs and wallet. I have the 17-40 and prefer the lighter weight and range of the lens to the 16-35 F4IS. I don't use the 17-40 that much, so it isn't worth the upgrade to me. I like the results that I get from the older lens, and think of it as an outside, good lighting lens.
If you can benefit from the IS, and plan to use the lens a LOT, the upgrade might be worth it. I last used my 17-40 on a trip, and even though most of the time it was used outside, there were times when I needed to use it inside, under very low light. Here, the IS of the 16-35F4IS would have been very helpful.
Only you can answer the question as to whether the upgrade is worth it. If the lens will be used a great deal, and you also want to use it inside in museums, cathedrals, etc., then it could be worth it. If you have lots of dough to burn, and plan to use the zoom range, then sure.
If I were buying an ultrawide zoom right now, it would probably be the 16-35 with IS. If I had a very high megapixel camera, I would want IS. However, I don't plan to upgrade.

 

[Maximilian]

Whether or not it is worth an upgrade depends on your needs and wallet. I have the 17-40 and prefer the lighter weight and range of the lens to the 16-35 F4IS. I don't use the 17-40 that much, so it isn't worth the upgrade to me.

Same here.

But if I was doing much more UWA I would seriously consider it because of all advantages mentioned by slclick.

 

[slclick]

And here's a review from a respected source....http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

 

[privatebydesign]

The jump in IQ from the 17-40 to 16-35 f4 IS is larger than most lens upgrades. In my opinion if you are interested in sharp the upgrade is a no brainer, the difference is noticeable in even modest sized images.

I'd take a Manfrotto and 16-35 f4 IS over an RRS and 17-40 any day!

 

[kaihp]

The jump in IQ from the 17-40 to 16-35 f4 IS is larger than most lens upgrades. In my opinion if you are interested in sharp the upgrade is a no brainer, the difference is noticeable in even modest sized images.

Agreed. I upgraded my 17-40L to the 16-36/4L and the IQ just murders the 17-40. Like others note, it's a bit of a niche lens, so I don't use it that often. But when you want corner-to-corner sharpness in the UWA range, then the 16-35/4L is an excellent choice.

(Yes, the 16-35/2.8 III is apparently even better, but the cost/value ratio is too low for me).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It all depends. If you are really critical and shoot wide open, its worth the money to upgrade. If you stop down, at f/8 -f/16 I would not bother to switch.

Many photos do not show the edge weakness unless you look really hard.

 

[Krob78]

I have both and the EF 11-24mm as well. My copy of the 17-40 is particularly sharp, fell in love with it, it was my 2nd one, my first was good and a work horse but the 2nd one is amazing... That said, I picked up the 16-35 IS, not expecting much difference but wanting to try the IS because I was beginning to see some results in some of my images of a little shaking going on.. :

The 16-35 IS blew me away, I had no idea that an ultra wide could get any sharper than my excellent 17-40 copy! Additionally, what no one else has mentioned is that little extra focal length on the wide end is a huge difference to me, using this lens primarily for Real Estate work, it's allowing me to deliver much nicer, wider images to my clients.

I felt like the 16mm end was the "sweet spot" for my work! Had a large credit at an online dealer and used it to purchase the 11-24mm just to see what all the hoorah was about. I honestly had no intention on keeping it but man, that thing is sweet!! I use it more than my 16-35 IS!! Now I think 12mm is the sweet spot for Real estate work, especially in the luxury home end, very nice.

All said, I would buy the 16-35 IS in a heartbeat if I had to do it again, over my 17-40, no question. I still have the 17-40 thinking it would still have a place in my bag, like it did in my heart but I can honestly tell you, I've not used it since the first week I got the 16-35 and I was an early adopter, ordering mine within 3-4 weeks of availability. I just put my 17-40 up on Craigslist, not using it in well over a year or two, however long it's been since they came out with the 16-35 IS. So that extra mm on the wide end can be helpful too, depending on what your shooting. Great for landscapes as well...

All the best!
Ken 8)

 

[SUNDOG04]

Thanks everyone. Very informative answers. It does sound that most people are please with the better performance of the the 16-35 IS over the 17-40. As stated, only I can decided it is with the cost to upgrade. I do think it is, but still struggle getting the money for it. I would do it in a heartbeat if money were not the issue. I do use the 17-40 quite a bit, so it is not too wide, and the extra 4 degrees (I think) would not be huge, but would be welcome.

 

[Sabaki]

The 16-35 f/4.0 is just better than the 17-40 at every measurable but whether it's sufficiently better at f/8.0 to warrant the upgrade price, only you will know.

There's already some very compelling reasons to upgrade but I would also like to add that you will be future proofing your kit with the 16-35 f/4.0 IS.

It's listed as a recommended lens for use on the 50mp 5DSR by Canon so I imagine it would get the most out of any DSLR Canon may release in the next 10 years minimum.

 

[BeenThere]

I made the switch and never looked back. Very happy with the 16-35 f/4. The IS has been used a lot in situations where my tripod was impractical.

 

[JonAustin]

I bought my 17-40 in 2003 to replace the 24-85 kit lens on my 10D, as I wanted better image and build quality, and the wide end was more important that the long end, since it was to serve as a standard range zoom on a crop body.

When I migrated to full frame, the weak corners of the 17-40 (my copy, anyway) were revealed. I switched to the 24-105 for my standard zoom, and although I kept the 17-40, I was never very excited about using it, unless stopped down, as mentioned by Mt Spokane Photography.

So I jumped on the 16-35/4 about 6 months after its release (and all the subsequent glowing reviews), on a great deal (at the time) from CPW, and have been very satisfied with it. I never experience the pause that I had before mounting the 17-40, and consequently, use it a great deal more. The IS of course adds to the range of applications to which it is suited.

One final, minor note: the hood on the 17-40, although very shallow, was quite wide, and I found it a pain to pack in my hiking bag. Reversing it on the lens didn't help; I frequently either stuck in a (large) jacket pocket, or left it behind. The design of the 16-35/4's hood is much more backpack friendly.

 

[Luds34]

Thanks everyone. Very informative answers. It does sound that most people are please with the better performance of the the 16-35 IS over the 17-40. As stated, only I can decided it is with the cost to upgrade. I do think it is, but still struggle getting the money for it. I would do it in a heartbeat if money were not the issue. I do use the 17-40 quite a bit, so it is not too wide, and the extra 4 degrees (I think) would not be huge, but would be welcome.

You and I are in the same boat. I'm not a huge sharpness nut, like I don't need to pixel peep all my shots or anything, but I've never been blown away by the 17-40 and the sharpness it produces, even in the middle of the frame. The micro contrast doesn't seem to be there either. Especially in comparison to other lenses I shoot that do get me excited (Sigma Art, 135L) and I know that I'd like to upgrade. So I'm keeping my eyes on the market both new and used for the new 16-35. I've gotten some really great shots with the 17-40 but sometimes I wonder if they'd just pop a bit more with the upgrade. This is kind of the one lens I feel like I'd like to get to "complete" my kit.

For those that have had both, do you find the larger size/weight of the new 16-35 f/4L to be much of a big deal? And I'm going to assume no one misses the 40mm on the long end.

 

[slclick]

Thanks everyone. Very informative answers. It does sound that most people are please with the better performance of the the 16-35 IS over the 17-40. As stated, only I can decided it is with the cost to upgrade. I do think it is, but still struggle getting the money for it. I would do it in a heartbeat if money were not the issue. I do use the 17-40 quite a bit, so it is not too wide, and the extra 4 degrees (I think) would not be huge, but would be welcome.

You and I are in the same boat. I'm not a huge sharpness nut, like I don't need to pixel peep all my shots or anything, but I've never been blown away by the 17-40 and the sharpness it produces, even in the middle of the frame. The micro contrast doesn't seem to be there either. Especially in comparison to other lenses I shoot that do get me excited (Sigma Art, 135L) and I know that I'd like to upgrade. So I'm keeping my eyes on the market both new and used for the new 16-35. I've gotten some really great shots with the 17-40 but sometimes I wonder if they'd just pop a bit more with the upgrade. This is kind of the one lens I feel like I'd like to get to "complete" my kit.

For those that have had both, do you find the larger size/weight of the new 16-35 f/4L to be much of a big deal? And I'm going to assume no one misses the 40mm on the long end.

The 16-35 is no heavyweight, it's all engineering plastic and quite lighter than say the 24-70. The hood is shallow and has the nice click button feature as well. It's a win win. $824 is a bargain as well.

 

[ahsanford]

As others have said, the 16-35 f/4L IS is a comprehensively better tool than the 17-40 f/4L. The question is not whether it offers you value. It does, plain and simple.

IS makes hiking a treat -- you can look at a host of ways, but I see it as latitude to keep ISO down. You can stop down to a landscape apertures in not stellar light and still net sharp shots handheld in the ISO 400 neighborhood instead of the 1600-3200 neighborhood.

I also believe it to be a well designed lens w.r.t. slot-in filters -- the front filter threads were tucked as tight as possible to the front element and vignetting is largely a non-issue with the standard 4x6 system, which is no small feat for an UWA lens!

But... (just playing devil's advocate here -- I love the f/4L IS)

For that same money, you could get an entire Lee holder setup, ND grads, Big Stopper, etc.

For that same money, you could get a killer featherweight hiking tripod, ball head and L-plate.

For that same money, you could get an entirely different focal length L lens to hike with.

For that same money, you could get a terrific backcountry photography bag (Rotation 360?), new tent, sleeping bag and Thermarest.

For that same money, you could travel to Banff, The Dolomites, Torres del Paine, etc. (depends on where you live) and have amazing vistas around every corner.

It's all about your priorities.

- A

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I made the 17-40 to 16-35 F4 L IS upgrade.

I rather like way the 17-40 renders colour - I always found that images had a richer, more vivid, quality to them. All I can say is that everything I liked about the 17-40 is as good or better with the 16-35 F4 L IS and it does not share the 17-40's faults/weaknesses. Wonderful colours, excellent sharpness = just a great lens!

Much as I liked the 17-40 the 16-35 F4 is the best pound for pound upgrade in Canon Land ;D

 

[pwp]

I bought a 17-40 f/4 when they first shipped back in 2003. It was a bargain for what it delivered. It was pure mush wide open but from f/5.6 through to f/11 it was up to the task for any commercial project. It was foolishly replaced with a 16-35 f/2.8. It's only advantage was the fact it was f/2.8. From f/5.6 through to f/11 the old 17-40 f/4 outperformed the 16-35. I tried another 16-35 f/2.8 and this showed little improvement. I should have just kept the 17-40, as I rarely used it wide open.

When the 16-35 f/4is was announced with subsequent rave reviews it was a logical step to give it a try. My experience backs up the findings of reviewers worldwide. It's an absolute cracker of a lens, including strong performance wide open. Even if you never shoot wide open, the IS on this lens helps deliver appreciably more keepers.

OP, if you only ever use your 17-40 stopped down and on a tripod, there is probably little to gain with a 16-35 f4is. But let's be clear, overall this is a huge upgrade an improvement over the 17-40. It's abilities and qualities may well open up creative avenues for you that you couldn't anticipate. This often happens with new equipment.

-pw

 

[ahsanford]

I bought a 17-40 f/4 when they first shipped back in 2003. It was a bargain for what it delivered. It was pure mush wide open but from f/5.6 through to f/11 it was up to the task for any commercial project. It was foolishly replaced with a 16-35 f/2.8.

Hate to break it to you, but the 17-40 f/4L was not replaced by the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

In fact, the 17-40 f/4L is still sold today.

- A

 

[Ryananthony]

I bought a 17-40 f/4 when they first shipped back in 2003. It was a bargain for what it delivered. It was pure mush wide open but from f/5.6 through to f/11 it was up to the task for any commercial project. It was foolishly replaced with a 16-35 f/2.8.

Hate to break it to you, but the 17-40 f/4L was not replaced by the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

In fact, the 17-40 f/4L is still sold today.

- A

I read that as he replaced his 17-40 with the 16-35. Perhaps you are jumping to conclusions.