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

[pwp]

I've been using a 17-40 f/4 for commercial work since it was first released in 2003. At the time it absolutely creamed the unloved original 16-35 f/2.8 from 2001, especially when hooked up to the 1Ds from around the same period.

It's been good but frankly the 17-40 isn't satisfying me the way it used to. I'd like to hear from photographers who have had both the 17-40 f/4L and the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

The newer lens is going to be a clear winner at f/4 but how close are they in reality when shooting at f/8 and f/11?
My bodies are FF (soon to be 1DX) and 1D4.

Paul Wright

 

[Loswr]

In the center at narrow apertures, not much difference. In the corners, the 17-40 is still a bit soft even when stopped down, while the 16-35 II is sharp there.

The downside to the 16-35 II is the 82mm filter thread, but hey, at least it matches the new 24-70!

 

[well_dunno]

Few days ago, I was checking the reviews for TS-e 17mm and saw a few image comparisons of the lens with 16-35mm f/2.8 II and 17-40mm f/4. Of the latter two, 16-35 mkII seems considerably sharper there in many apertures...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-17mm-f-4-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

edit: sorry the comparison I was referring to was under TS-E 24mm - Comparison is available on the above link too though. Naturally @ 17mm and 24 mm respectively...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[akiskev]

16-35's flare is way worse than 17-40's

 

[LACityPhotoCom]

Take it from me. I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2006 and have owned two 16-35 2.8 IIs, and probably half a dozen 17-40Ls over time shot on full frame 5D mark I and Mark II bodies as well as Rebels and a 40D.

The 17-40L and 16-35LII are optically Canon's best ultra-wide zooms. They both perform equally as far as sharpness goes and both look identical stopped down. (the photo on the front page of my site was shot with the 17-40 and 5D2 and even at 1900 px wide, that image is super sharp corner to corner. Shot at F/22 too!

The 16-35 Mark II shines obviously in low light and wide open is SUPER SUPER sharp in the center (excellent for casual/fun portraits) it's just a JOY to use in ALL situations whereas the 17-40L is a joy to use in SOME situations. the 17-40L is softish wide open especially in the corners. the 16-35LII shows excellent center sharpness wide open and good in the corners.

Is it worth the extra 7-800 bucks? YES YES YES. I am so happy with my 16-35L II and it's going to stay with me likely forever.

 

[birdman]

the 16-35 gets bashed so much because of price premium. The 17-40 is pretty close at f/8 and smaller.

Samples vary just like with any glass. My 17-40 is decent, but mushy in corners even at small f stops. I rented 16-35 and I swear it was better in the corners, definitely below f/8.0.

I would hold out and see if anything gets released this year. The Tokina 17-35/4.0 i supposed to be really solid with nearly ZERO distortion!! to me, it looks close to both of your mentioned lens.

And lastly, there are two Zeiss 21mm Distagons on ebay right now for 1,485 OBO, slightly used. I am strongly tempted to buy one. If they will take $1,300 shipped i just might pull trigger. Used 17-40L anyone?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Wide angle lenses seem to be a weak spot in Canon's line up for FF bodies. They are good, but...

I sold my 17-40 L and ended up with a small cheap tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that cost me $150. I like it much better than the zoom, even though its not perfect.

Canon's TS-E 17mm is supurb, but MF and $$$$.

Of course, if you have a crop body, just get the 10-22mm zoom.

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

I have the 16-35 on a crop sensor and use it as a wide to standard and I have fallen in love with it. I dont really shoot architecture mainly weddings and concerts. A great lens and I have had little to no flare even when shooting toward the sun.

 

[akiskev]

Some people OBVIOUSLY (-7 karma) don't believe me about the flare issue.
See for yourselves newbs.

28mm f/11

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

My apologies for not having the same issue with the flare. Because it is not a problem for me I must be a "newb". For my work it has not been an issue.

 

[enice128]

Take it from me. I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2006 and have owned two 16-35 2.8 IIs, and probably half a dozen 17-40Ls over time shot on full frame 5D mark I and Mark II bodies as well as Rebels and a 40D.

The 17-40L and 16-35LII are optically Canon's best ultra-wide zooms. They both perform equally as far as sharpness goes and both look identical stopped down. (the photo on the front page of my site was shot with the 17-40 and 5D2 and even at 1900 px wide, that image is super sharp corner to corner. Shot at F/22 too!

The 16-35 Mark II shines obviously in low light and wide open is SUPER SUPER sharp in the center (excellent for casual/fun portraits) it's just a JOY to use in ALL situations whereas the 17-40L is a joy to use in SOME situations. the 17-40L is softish wide open especially in the corners. the 16-35LII shows excellent center sharpness wide open and good in the corners.

Is it worth the extra 7-800 bucks? YES YES YES. I am so happy with my 16-35L II and it's going to stay with me likely forever.

I think I'm finally gonna pull the trigger on the 16-35 II tomorrow! I've been contemplating it for some time now. I had a used excellent copy on hold but they accidentally sold it! So now I have to spend for new. I'm trading in my 17-40 for $400 so that should help some. I shoot mostly people, sports, sometimes landscapes so 2.8 is huge for me. Did a party the other nite w my 17-40 & my 50 1.2 @2.8. What a difference w each lens. I do t even wanna use my 17-40 no more....I'm spoiled at 2.8!!! One question though....how's the 16-35 when shooting sports? Is it fast enough because this will be my main event lens for shooting weddings, sweet 16s, etc. as well as getting close up action when shooting sports along w my 70-200 2.8 II???

 

[wickidwombat]

Take it from me. I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2006 and have owned two 16-35 2.8 IIs, and probably half a dozen 17-40Ls over time shot on full frame 5D mark I and Mark II bodies as well as Rebels and a 40D.

The 17-40L and 16-35LII are optically Canon's best ultra-wide zooms. They both perform equally as far as sharpness goes and both look identical stopped down. (the photo on the front page of my site was shot with the 17-40 and 5D2 and even at 1900 px wide, that image is super sharp corner to corner. Shot at F/22 too!

The 16-35 Mark II shines obviously in low light and wide open is SUPER SUPER sharp in the center (excellent for casual/fun portraits) it's just a JOY to use in ALL situations whereas the 17-40L is a joy to use in SOME situations. the 17-40L is softish wide open especially in the corners. the 16-35LII shows excellent center sharpness wide open and good in the corners.

Is it worth the extra 7-800 bucks? YES YES YES. I am so happy with my 16-35L II and it's going to stay with me likely forever.

I think I'm finally gonna pull the trigger on the 16-35 II tomorrow! I've been contemplating it for some time now. I had a used excellent copy on hold but they accidentally sold it! So now I have to spend for new. I'm trading in my 17-40 for $400 so that should help some. I shoot mostly people, sports, sometimes landscapes so 2.8 is huge for me. Did a party the other nite w my 17-40 & my 50 1.2 @2.8. What a difference w each lens. I do t even wanna use my 17-40 no more....I'm spoiled at 2.8!!! One question though....how's the 16-35 when shooting sports? Is it fast enough because this will be my main event lens for shooting weddings, sweet 16s, etc. as well as getting close up action when shooting sports along w my 70-200 2.8 II???

AF is very fast and amazingly fast to lock on in very low light, I love my 16-35

 

[enice128]

Thats what i thought! I'm especially gonna grab it since i believe the canon rebates r gonna expire on feb 2 so itll be $200 more after that. I luv my 17-40 but i think i will luv the 16-35 even more so!

 

[wickidwombat]

Thats what i thought! I'm especially gonna grab it since i believe the canon rebates r gonna expire on feb 2 so itll be $200 more after that. I luv my 17-40 but i think i will luv the 16-35 even more so!

yeah I see you have the 1Dmk4, that body and this lens are a seriously awesome combo basically 21mm to 48mm FF equivalent and the slight crop makes it corner to corner sharp even wide open, Its overall a superb walk around general purpose combo

 

[enice128]

Thats what i thought! I'm especially gonna grab it since i believe the canon rebates r gonna expire on feb 2 so itll be $200 more after that. I luv my 17-40 but i think i will luv the 16-35 even more so!

yeah I see you have the 1Dmk4, that body and this lens are a seriously awesome combo basically 21mm to 48mm FF equivalent and the slight crop makes it corner to corner sharp even wide open, Its overall a superb walk around general purpose combo

Thanks for making my mind up for me....im picking it up tomorrow! I just have this thing with 2.8 being the narrowest i like to shoot (unless with groups of people of course). Its a bit heavier but then again im used to my 70-200! The rebates r ending on the 2nd so i believe this will be the cheapest for some time. Im really would like to wait to see how the 14-24 plays but whos knows if & when its coming along with the price! And i believe it'll be too wide to shoot people even on my 1.3 crop with facial distortion! What do u think???

 

[crasher8]

After owning 2 17-40's and having the 16-35 for the past 2 weeks I can tell you I either have a great copy or these reviews that say these two lens aren't very different stopped down is rubbish. The color rendition, contrast and flare control are far superior in the 16-35. I'm happy.

 

[enice128]

After owning 2 17-40's and having the 16-35 for the past 2 weeks I can tell you I either have a great copy or these reviews that say these two lens aren't very different stopped down is rubbish. The color rendition, contrast and flare control are far superior in the 16-35. I'm happy.

Thats what i like to hear! Not to take anything away from the 17-40 though!

 

[ddashti]

As you may have already read previously, the key points to the 16-35 II are the extra stop of light, and the slightly lesser softness towards the edges.
At f/11 and f/13, the 16-35 II performs slightly better (not a big difference) than the 17-40 in most cases.
If you need the extra stop of light and money isn't an issue, the 16-35 II screams "get me." If you're on a budget and the extra stop doesn't matter (if you're primarily shooting in daylight), then the 17-40 would be the suitable choice.

 

[enice128]

I rarely ever shoot that narrow. I usually like to utilize a lens for what its meant to be used for. For example, my 50 1.2 I mostly use at 1.2 but ill close down to 2.8, f4 or 5.6 for groups of people. Maybe slightly higher for larger groups but that's it. Unless all people in shot r of same importance I love that shallow DOF! I also love shooting in low light with or without my 580exII so this one xtra stop of light is huge for me. Even with my speed light Ill prob be able to lower my ISO. I dont feel like waiting for the 14-24, IF it even comes out along w it's high price point & probably gonna be too wide to shoot people. And w rebates ending tomorrow I might as well pull the trigger!

 

[Cinto]

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.