17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I
- Thread starter vlim
- Start date
- Status
For the same price, the 16-35 would be the better option. When stopped down to F4, it is as sharp as the 17-40 and you have the advantage of being able to use F2.8 when you want to.
Upvote
0
U
ud4steve
Guest
I would say it depends what you'll be doing with it. Like Kristofgss said having f/2.8 vs f/4 has its advantages but if you're going to be hiking a lot or anything where you'll be carrying your camera, considering the ISO capabilities of the 5D3, I would recommend the 17-40. At the time I bought mine it was significantly cheaper too, but if it's something I'm going to be carrying all day the lighter weight will help you make better pictures at the end of the day as you won't be as tired. I love my 17-40 it takes great pictures and its the lens that stays on my camera most of the time. Good luck with your decision!
Upvote
0
You might glean a few well informed viewpoints from this piece from Luminous Landscape...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
My feelings would be that the 5D3 sensor will punish the old 16-35 f/2.8. It was never a stellar lens at the best of times, performing only adequately on film bodies...let alone FF DSLR. I had one which was a constant disappointment. By contrast, the 17-40 which I have owned since they were announced in 2003 has been consistently excellent, currently spending a lot of time on a 5D3 body. Provided you accept that it can be a bit mushy wide open, keep in perspective that from f/5 it is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II.
If I was in your shoes I'd be going for the 17-40. If you NEED f/2.8 save some more for the 16-35 f/2.8II.
-PW
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
My feelings would be that the 5D3 sensor will punish the old 16-35 f/2.8. It was never a stellar lens at the best of times, performing only adequately on film bodies...let alone FF DSLR. I had one which was a constant disappointment. By contrast, the 17-40 which I have owned since they were announced in 2003 has been consistently excellent, currently spending a lot of time on a 5D3 body. Provided you accept that it can be a bit mushy wide open, keep in perspective that from f/5 it is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II.
If I was in your shoes I'd be going for the 17-40. If you NEED f/2.8 save some more for the 16-35 f/2.8II.
-PW
Upvote
0
Thanks for your advices guys 
so in a close future my photo gear for nature and wildlife picture should be this one :
5D Mark III and 40D
17-40mm F/4 L
100mm macro F/2.8 L IS
70-200mm F/4 L IS
and a tele lens most likely the400 5.6 L (a new version with IS and Weather sealing is welcome). i just order a 300mm F/4 L IS 8)
so in a close future my photo gear for nature and wildlife picture should be this one :
5D Mark III and 40D
17-40mm F/4 L
100mm macro F/2.8 L IS
70-200mm F/4 L IS
and a tele lens most likely the
Upvote
0
16-35L if you don't mind the weight otherwise 17-40L.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Upvote
0
i agree sharpness wise, but the 17-40 beats even the mark ii 16-35 at 5.6+, and the 16-35s have harsh vignetting till f8. i say 17-40, because, you get the newer version, the bokeh on wa isn't really blurry on wa even if so, its f4 vs f2.8, you get 5mm more reach, and with the 5d ii iso, f4 isnt a huge issueKristofgss said:
Upvote
0
If you're not totally set on your UWA being a zoom, I hear excellent things about the Samyang 14mm prime. Its very cheap and although manual focus/aperture it seems pin sharp even to the corners. Search around for reviews, but seems like a great buy.
I'm in the exact same position as you and after ruling out the canon 14L due to expense, i've been considering the 17-40 & 16-35 (leaning towards the 17-40). But reading up on the Samyang has really made me think whether I need a zoom, given it appears sharper than the 17-40 across the piece.
Food for thought anyway.
Richard.
I'm in the exact same position as you and after ruling out the canon 14L due to expense, i've been considering the 17-40 & 16-35 (leaning towards the 17-40). But reading up on the Samyang has really made me think whether I need a zoom, given it appears sharper than the 17-40 across the piece.
Food for thought anyway.
Richard.
Upvote
0
Im actually looking at similar options, but I've already ruled out both versions of the 16-35 as I really see a need for f2.8 in a WA lens, especially when I think most of my shots with this lens will probably be f8 or higher. I have a 24-70 2.8 when I need somewhat wide and fast. I'm interested in the samyang too, probably should see if I can rent both for a week or so and see what seems to work best.
Upvote
0
B
Bud Spencer
Guest
Image quality is a very complex matter way beyond sharpness figures. Online forums and print media are focussing on sharpness because it is easy to measure and to judge. If You go really wide angle, You'll often very likely find the sun within your frame. Here the 17-40L shines, with much better flare resistance than the 16-35L1 and even L2. Find yourself a good copy and try to attach the more efficient & elegant EW-83H lens hood (19-40mm). When bought new, You can even send your cam + lens to Canon to match them together (calibration).
As an alternative approach, one could try out prime lenses like the "king of sharpness and clarity" Olympus OM 2.8/24 MC, the old EF 2.8/24 is no slouch either and easily holds it's own compared to the 17-40L. The old primes EF 2/35 and EF 1.8/50 are much sharper then the 17-40L. Even the EF 2.8/20 USM is way better then it's webutation, and the Tokina ATX 3.5/17 is all but a hidden secret. Why prime lenses?
Prime lenses have less elements, thus less flare issues and are much more reliable when it comes to repetitive accuracy, they're simply solid partners and worth a second thought. You're much better off zooming by your own feet instead of using a 16-elements-in-11-groups-alignment-nightmare. Well, mostly.
Just my tuppence.
Regards, Bud
As an alternative approach, one could try out prime lenses like the "king of sharpness and clarity" Olympus OM 2.8/24 MC, the old EF 2.8/24 is no slouch either and easily holds it's own compared to the 17-40L. The old primes EF 2/35 and EF 1.8/50 are much sharper then the 17-40L. Even the EF 2.8/20 USM is way better then it's webutation, and the Tokina ATX 3.5/17 is all but a hidden secret. Why prime lenses?
Prime lenses have less elements, thus less flare issues and are much more reliable when it comes to repetitive accuracy, they're simply solid partners and worth a second thought. You're much better off zooming by your own feet instead of using a 16-elements-in-11-groups-alignment-nightmare. Well, mostly.
Just my tuppence.
Regards, Bud
Upvote
0
This seems like an odd hypothetical to me in that the used 16-35s sell for about double what the 17-40mm sells for:
16-35mm
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=canon+16-35mm+ii&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1
17-40mm
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=canon+17-40mm&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1
For my money, the 17-40 is nearing the top of my kit wish list as a great value.
Upvote
0
I have a friend who has the 17-40 and I have the 16-35 v1. I love my 16-35 and I use it all the time. She's happy with her 17-40. They are both great lenses and you'll be glad you have either one. Wish I could help you decide but alas...
Maybe rent them before buying?
Maybe rent them before buying?
Upvote
0
Kristofgss said:
I agree with this but I also agree with the fact that the 17-40 is lighter and also that the 5D3 may be able help you compensate for the one less stop with ISO. You'll be happy with either one!
Upvote
0
I'm in a similar predicament. coming from the 10-22 on a crop, I really liked 10mm. My main concern isn't the extra stop of light as I will probably be shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 anyway. I've read that in UWA lenses, 1 mm makes a big difference. Is the difference between 16mm and 17mm significant?
Upvote
0
AudioGlenn said:
Canon has a decent lens comparison tool so you can see the difference in focal lengths. Give it a try, hope it helps. http://canonlenses.ca/Get-a-wider-perspective
I just recently went through the same decision process as well. Bought a 5d3 about a week ago and was trying to decide on what UWA to get to replace my 10-22. Decided on the 16-35 f2.8 II. So far I couldn't be happier with my choice.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
