17-40 ---> 16-35 f4

[Jemlnlx]

Hi everyone...

Tomorrow I hope to be getting a 16-35mm f/4. I currently have the 17-40 which I have been more or less happy with and has served me well over the past few years. I owned a 16-35mm f/2.8 II for a short period of time, but decided to sell it because I could not justify the price difference (17-40 Used - $550 vs. 16-35 Used $1200 - at the time for good clean copies). I ended up going back to the 17-40.

The 16-35 f4 seems to be somewhere (~$950 Used) in the middle and has gotten great reviews all around. The chart numbers seem great and the example look good. I am particularly excited about testing the corner sharpness, which is supposed to be a big improvement over the 17-40 and 16-35 2.8. I like that the filter is 77mm to share filters with my 24-70 2.8 I.

Please let me know what you think about your 16-35 f4. Any and all opinions are welcomed...

 

[RLPhoto]

You won't use the 17-40L once you get the 16-35mm F4L.

 

[privatebydesign]

I use the $2,000+ 17TS-E almost every day, it is lauded as the best ultra wide lens made by Canon, I recently got a new 16-35 f4 IS for $999. At 17mm the zoom has every bit as much resolution as my TS-E and the contrast is much better.

The 16-35 f4 IS is a very very good lens with sharpness and contrast that rivals the very best available, throw in IS, the 77mm filter thread, and the keen price, I am more than happy with the purchase.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

I use the $2,000+ 17TS-E almost every day, it is lauded as the best ultra wide lens made by Canon, I recently got a new 16-35 f4 IS for $999. At 17mm the zoom has every bit as much resolution as my TS-E and the contrast is much better.

The 16-35 f4 IS is a very very good lens with sharpness and contrast that rivals the very best available, throw in IS, the 77mm filter thread, and the keen price, I am more than happy with the purchase.

i will be getting the 17TSE I know its a super good glass but since you own it is the 16-35 f4 a better buy. I will not be switching a prime for a zoom thou.

 

[privatebydesign]

I use the $2,000+ 17TS-E almost every day, it is lauded as the best ultra wide lens made by Canon, I recently got a new 16-35 f4 IS for $999. At 17mm the zoom has every bit as much resolution as my TS-E and the contrast is much better.

The 16-35 f4 IS is a very very good lens with sharpness and contrast that rivals the very best available, throw in IS, the 77mm filter thread, and the keen price, I am more than happy with the purchase.

i will be getting the 17TSE I know its a super good glass but since you own it is the 16-35 f4 a better buy. I will not be switching a prime for a zoom thou.

They are very different lenses that do different jobs, but as a 17mm 'prime' the 16-35 f4 IS beats the pants off the 17TS-E. Of course if you need tilts and/or shifts then the 16-35 is useless!

After selling my 16-35 f2.8 MkI and using the 17TS-E as happily as I was I wasn't actually planning on replacing my ultrawide zoom, but after seeing it on CPW for $999 I thought I'd give it a go and I am very happy that I did, the IQ from it is staggeringly good and the functionality with the zoom, weatherproofing, AF, IS etc just makes it a supremely good package. I know it is really the 17-40 replacement, and as such it is a large cost increase, but to my mind it is worth every penny and some.

The 17TS-E does stuff the 16-35 never will, but unless you really need that functionality then the zoom is a vastly better buy. And unless you must have the 17 fov I'd recommend the 24TS-E over the 17 any day.

 

[chas1113]

I was happy with my 17-40 (except for the extreme edges); but when a refurbished 16-35 IS came up on Canon Direct over the holidays, I jumped on it. Sold my 17-40 for a good price with the total outlay being $115. Let me say this: the 16-35 IS is MUCH better than $115 better. I recently borrowed a 45mm TS-E to compare to the zoom at 35mm. The TSE had slightly better saturation overall, but was not any sharper. The contrast on the two was virtually identical. The color between the two was indistinguishable. I have read that in the center, the 16-35 IS is not much better than the 2.8 version or the 17-40 for that matter. I shipped my 17-40 before I had a chance to compare the two side by side, but I think I see a vast improvement in the 16-35 IS. One thing you'll like is the new lens hood design. Much smaller and more tenable than the old 17-40 petal-shaped hood was. The big surprise for me is the fact that 16mm seems MUCH wider than 17mm. This is an outstanding lens. You won't regret getting it.

 

[Dylan777]

Congrats.

You will enjoy it

 

[surapon]

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/joel_santos_on_the_new_ef16-35mm_zoom.do?utm_source=newsletter_january_3_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter

 

[Jemlnlx]

Wow... $999 Brand New!! I guess I missed out. I know its 1049 on there now. I see B&H advertising it for 1099. I understand these prices reflect rebates.

Looking forward to using it.

Thanks for all the input

 

[tculotta]

One word: phenomenal. Buy it. You won't regret it.

 

[rigrx]

The 16-35 f/4 is the best wide angle lense by far...

 

[mackguyver]

+1 on all of the comments. It's become my most-used lens for everything except wildlife!

 

[kirkcha]

Very happy with it, my 14 and 24-105 hardly come out of my bag now. Never owned the 17-40 but rented one and decided to wait and glad I did because the 16-35 f4 is exactly what I needed.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I'm still chugging along with my 17-40L. Together with the 24-105L it is the core of my travel lens kit, and with a EW-83H hood of which I've trimmed the side petals I am able to use the same modified hood on both lenses, very convenient because it actually saves a lot of space.

Mind, if I required a wide angle zoom more outside of travel, I would consider the 16-35 f/4 but as a kit I prefer the 17-40 with the 24-105. For day to day shooting I more often use wa primes but who knows at some point I may get the 16-35 f/4 too.

 

[Jim Saunders]

I've used all three and the 16-35 f/4 is the only one I'll keep.

Jim

 

[JoFT]

Congratulation. It´s a great step forward. love this lens...

And some more:

http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/8/image-stabilization-in-wide-angle-lenses

 

[wsmith96]

Congrats on the new lens!

 

[sagittariansrock]

I use the $2,000+ 17TS-E almost every day, it is lauded as the best ultra wide lens made by Canon, I recently got a new 16-35 f4 IS for $999. At 17mm the zoom has every bit as much resolution as my TS-E and the contrast is much better.

The 16-35 f4 IS is a very very good lens with sharpness and contrast that rivals the very best available, throw in IS, the 77mm filter thread, and the keen price, I am more than happy with the purchase.

i will be getting the 17TSE I know its a super good glass but since you own it is the 16-35 f4 a better buy. I will not be switching a prime for a zoom thou.

They are very different lenses that do different jobs, but as a 17mm 'prime' the 16-35 f4 IS beats the pants off the 17TS-E. Of course if you need tilts and/or shifts then the 16-35 is useless!

After selling my 16-35 f2.8 MkI and using the 17TS-E as happily as I was I wasn't actually planning on replacing my ultrawide zoom, but after seeing it on CPW for $999 I thought I'd give it a go and I am very happy that I did, the IQ from it is staggeringly good and the functionality with the zoom, weatherproofing, AF, IS etc just makes it a supremely good package. I know it is really the 17-40 replacement, and as such it is a large cost increase, but to my mind it is worth every penny and some.

The 17TS-E does stuff the 16-35 never will, but unless you really need that functionality then the zoom is a vastly better buy. And unless you must have the 17 fov I'd recommend the 24TS-E over the 17 any day.

What do you use your TS-E for?
I have generally don't use wider FoVs than 24mm for landscape and the 17TS-E is great for buildings (outside and inside) and the Rokinon 14 is great for getting really close or small spaces. For that reason, amazing as it is, I haven't been able to justify the 16-35. Since I hope to get into real estate photography, I think the 17mm is one I need to hang on to even for non-entertainment purposes

 

[slclick]

It hardly leaves my 5D3

 

[privatebydesign]

What do you use your TS-E for?
I have generally don't use wider FoVs than 24mm for landscape and the 17TS-E is great for buildings (outside and inside) and the Rokinon 14 is great for getting really close or small spaces. For that reason, amazing as it is, I haven't been able to justify the 16-35. Since I hope to get into real estate photography, I think the 17mm is one I need to hang on to even for non-entertainment purposes

I use it for architecture and real estate, the truth is it is overkill for the vast majority of real estate, but I shoot for developers and high end rental so any of my images can end up in brochures, print, or even as posters.

Though one of my mentors, an awesome leader of his field who was published in glossy magazines with multiple page spreads every month, shot multi million dollar projects with a Sigma 12-24 on his 5D MkII.

It really depends on what kind of 'real estate' work you are intending doing, it sounds silly but it starts to branch out pretty quickly. Regular MLS stuff would be better served with the zoom, and you'd earn the money back faster! But as you get into the higher end with larger spaces and bigger expectations the TS-E's come into their own. For anything architectural, the TS-E's are a necessity as all the other shooters are using them.

For most real estate image buyers drones and video walk throughs are becoming must haves and most shooters would be better off spending the money on a drone rather than a TS-E.