16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4

[Krob78]

@ Krkb78:
tested the 17-40 for a weekend, soft (= unsharp) + horrible CAs.
No.
Had the 16-35/2,8II for more then a year. Never sharp corners. Even at f8.
Didn't like it. Was usable on the 1d4, but FF: sigh....
Bad luck?

Bought my first non- Canon lens. Tokina 16-28/2,8.
Own it for 2 years.
Now I am happy. I have read a lot about varying quality, so it seems this time I had good luck.
Sharp from 2.8 on, corners good, corners excellent from 5.6 up.
Never saw this on the 16-35/II....

Be aware of that. It is heavier too. Has only 16-28mm.
I am also not sharing Neuroanatomists opinion, that a bulb- like front needs more loving care in developing.

I recommend to test a copy before you buy.

Thanks Alex, I checked it out and I like it. Seems like a perfect option for my 5d MkIII. I've ordered one and it's on the way, should have it by Thursday!

The one I tried was just like you said, quite impressive really. I noticed less distortion at 16mm too. As far as the bulbous front lens, I see that there are two filter systems out there that will work with this lens, should I need to use in that manner.

I don't plan on doing a lot of landscape work with it, although I can see taking it along on some wedding and event work. I'll likely use the 24-70mm f/2.8 for landscape work, I like the 24mm end for that...

Thank you again!

 

[Deleted member 7828]

When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.

This is why when I eventually go full frame I'll also need to get a better wide angle zoom than the 17-40 I already own, otherwise I could just get a 6D and be done with it. I'm not saying you can't get decent ultrawide shots with the 17-40 on full frame, but especially for landscape use, seeing how the corner resolution falls off even using it on a crop body, I can only imagine how it would be on full frame. Interestingly this is more apparent to me for landscape work at infinity focus than it is for closer subjects.

YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.

 

[insanitybeard]

YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.

Interestingly, and I admit my knowledge is limited on this, lens resolution/performance can vary with focusing/subject distance, and annoyingly this factor is rarely mentioned or tested by many lens testing sites. My 17-40 and EF-S 10-22 are both similar in this regard on the 7D, at close distances even to the edges of the frame the sharpness is pretty good, but for infinity subjects at the corner of the frame it's a different matter. Obviously, factors such as CA, field curvature and astigmatism have a part to play, and resolving fine detail on small and distant subjects is always going to be a bigger test of a lens than closer subjects.

 

[Krob78]

YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.

Interestingly, and I admit my knowledge is limited on this, lens resolution/performance can vary with focusing/subject distance, and annoyingly this factor is rarely mentioned or tested by many lens testing sites. My 17-40 and EF-S 10-22 are both similar in this regard on the 7D, at close distances even to the edges of the frame the sharpness is pretty good, but for infinity subjects at the corner of the frame it's a different matter. Obviously, factors such as CA, field curvature and astigmatism have a part to play, and resolving fine detail on small and distant subjects is always going to be a bigger test of a lens than closer subjects.

It's always going to be better on an APS-C body like the 7D over a full frame body...

 

[insanitybeard]

Interestingly, and I admit my knowledge is limited on this, lens resolution/performance can vary with focusing/subject distance, and annoyingly this factor is rarely mentioned or tested by many lens testing sites. My 17-40 and EF-S 10-22 are both similar in this regard on the 7D, at close distances even to the edges of the frame the sharpness is pretty good, but for infinity subjects at the corner of the frame it's a different matter. Obviously, factors such as CA, field curvature and astigmatism have a part to play, and resolving fine detail on small and distant subjects is always going to be a bigger test of a lens than closer subjects.

It's always going to be better on an APS-C body like the 7D over a full frame body...

Agreed, but the point about some lenses performing better at closer focus distances than infinity should apply equally to crop or full frame.

 

[Marsu42]

I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.

This doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive to me - while it's true lenses show different sharpness depending on focus distance, the effect on your particular copy of the lens could very well be stronger than the average "standard" due to a defect or simply bad luck with a "bad copy".

 

[Krob78]

I do a lot of city shots at night, I can tell you that the 17-40 has the best flare control of any lens I've ever used. Both for controlling artifacts and veiling flare. If your looking for resolution mostly, I'd look at the Tokina 16-28. I tried the 16-35 II and found it wasn't as good in contra light as the 17-40 and not as sharp as the Tokina, but it was second best at both.

I'd look at the Tokina 16-28.

Mine just came in yesterday, virtually worthless at f/2.8 for anything sharp. Also, focus motor is quite loud. I can live with that but when focussing from wide to narrow or visa versa, there is almost a grinding sound! Doesn't sound good at all, I can only picture little pieces of plastic or metal being ground down inside the lens body! The terrible sharpness at f/2.8 and the grinding noise will win this Tokina a place in the return mail! I will let them send me a new copy as I noticed the barrel distortion was really slight, even wide open at 16mm. That part was pretty impressive.

If the new copy fixes the sharpness issue at f/2.8 and the grinding sound coming from the AF, I'll keep it. If not, I'll be sending it back and moving toward the Canon ef 16-35 f/2.8 II.

Also, the Tokina lens is very heavy. I have a lot of heavy lenses but this one seems very heavy for it's relatively small size... I'll have it mostly on a tripod so that won't matter to much to me...

The vignetting was fairly normal to heavy at f/2.8 but it was extremely minimal at f/4.0 and above. Very pleased with that. CA was the same, very well under control... Hopefully, given the sharpness issue and the grinding, I just got an ill copy...

I can add the filter system to it and still be well under the cost of the EF 16-35mm II

 

[alexanderferdinand]

@ Krob78: bad luck, you have got a bad copy.
I had a hard time even thinking about buying a third party lens, after using almost 30 years only Canon.
The drive is louder, but extra sound like you described seems to be a serious damage.
I have read many reviews on the net before buying, Tokina seems to have issues with quality control.
So I choosed to order it from a place, where I can send it back with no problems.
I wish you good luck with the replacement.

 

[Krob78]

@ Krob78: bad luck, you have got a bad copy.
I had a hard time even thinking about buying a third party lens, after using almost 30 years only Canon.
The drive is louder, but extra sound like you described seems to be a serious damage.
I have read many reviews on the net before buying, Tokina seems to have issues with quality control.
So I choosed to order it from a place, where I can send it back with no problems.
I wish you good luck with the replacement.

Thanks Alex, I did send it back however I decided not to opt for a replacement. Although it was mostly good, the weight was really absurd and I decided I didn't want to "try" another one, so I ended up with another Canon L lens... I picked up a 17-40mm L and it works great, just like I knew it would. Surprisingly and conversely, the 17-40mm L is amazingly light!! Almost too light for my liking!!

But no flare issues, nice color rendering, sharp. Price was excellent at only $625 for brand new in box. I use it mostly for interior Real Estate work, so f/4 isn't an issue as I'm shooting it primarily indoors at f/5.6 and f/8. A little wider would have been nice but the lens will pay for itself very quickly with a couple of shoots.

I wanted the 16-35mm f/2.8 but decided with rumors of a new wide angle being announced later this year (hopefully with IS), I decided to pocket the almost $800 difference and I'll take a look at the new offering when it comes out... If it doesn't surface, I'll think about upgrading at that time. For now, other than the amazing lightness (feels cheap), of the 17-40mm, I'm set...