16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
- Thread starter pwp
- Start date
- Status
neuroanatomist said:
The good news is that the lens cap (either the aps-c compatible ew-83j or the ff ew-83e) are large enough to take 82mm filters with a step-up adapter, so that didn't prevent me from buying the 17-40L even though I'll also buy a 82mm 24-70 lens and thus have the large filters.
Upvote
0
Thanks a lot for this mini field review. Although my signature still says something else, reading these things I can imagine to go for the 16-35 instead of waiting on a phantom. As I do low light photography wide open, your experience is crucial for me. So I better burn an additional US $ 280.00 for a 10 stop ND filter instead of a 1000 more for a highly priced WA-zoom that doesn't even exist 8) Your insightful post is highly appreciated. Cheers, Pedro.LACityPhotoCom said:
Upvote
0
If you can afford the few extra $$$, 16-35II is a no brainer. Just get it.
Also dampen your expectations as both are UWA's and expecting ultra "crisp" images from corner to corner is setting yourself up for a disappointment. These are both great lenses and do their job very well. If you are realistic, either of them will make you happy.
Also dampen your expectations as both are UWA's and expecting ultra "crisp" images from corner to corner is setting yourself up for a disappointment. These are both great lenses and do their job very well. If you are realistic, either of them will make you happy.
Upvote
0
birdman said:
I never had the 16-35, have a 17-40 that's for sale.
I found it to be pretty usable at the wide end if stopped down to f/8 or smaller, improving considerably as you move to the long end.
If I used it for landscape work and didn't focus at hyperfocal or closer, my lens was always soft in the corners. Worked well for indoor and other close-focus material, slightly disappointing if I wanted crisp-to-the-corners large landscape prints.
I got the Tokina 17-35/4 and it's excellent in many ways from 21-35mm but the corners at the wide end are as bad or worse than the 17-40, depending on how you're using it so not much of an improvement, if any, on Canon, but an option in F-mount.
I'm currently trying to put together a wide-zoom kit for Nikon landscape work, minimizing overlap and maximizing performance. The Tokina 16-35 and 16-28 are both in the running for the mid-range wide-angle zoom with the Nikon 14-24 covering its best from about 14 to 20mm.
Upvote
0
It was me who started this thread 14 months ago. I had been a staunch defender of the 17-40, and most of that hold true if shooting from f/5.6-11. Last year I switched to the 16-35 f/2.8II and while there is a quality/economy role for the 17-40, the 16-35 f/2.8II does push it aside in a number of subtle, almost unexplainable ways. And so it should!
At the subtle level, now my UWA images just look better. Regardless of aperture. I'm at a loss to explain why. But I'm reaching for the 16-35 a lot more often than I did the 17-40. At a less subtle level, at least I can expect pretty good centre sharpness wide open. That couldn't be said for my copy of the 17-40.
At the end of the day, they're both lenses that will satisfy most shooters UWA needs, and deliver commercial quality results.
-PW
At the subtle level, now my UWA images just look better. Regardless of aperture. I'm at a loss to explain why. But I'm reaching for the 16-35 a lot more often than I did the 17-40. At a less subtle level, at least I can expect pretty good centre sharpness wide open. That couldn't be said for my copy of the 17-40.
At the end of the day, they're both lenses that will satisfy most shooters UWA needs, and deliver commercial quality results.
-PW
Upvote
0
pwp said:
This is great feedback on both of these lenses. This is why I'm saving up for the 16-35.
Upvote
0
AudioGlenn said:
As usual, "more expensive is better" applies here, though as far as I read it not for f8-f11 landscape shots. If you use uwa a lot, the 16-35 might be the better choice, but often it'll be used in a combo with a 24-70 lens - and then it gets more difficult: 16-35+cheap 24-70 or 17-40+expensive 24-70? That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
I use the 17-40 on crop as well, as my general purpose lens. Well built, sealed and performs well, and used on a crop body it's not suffering the same drop off in resolution or vignetting at the corners as it does on a FF body at the wide end, wide open!
Upvote
0
Had a question regarding the 16-35 and vignetting. Anyone tried using the B+W 82mm 3.0 ND MRC filter on this lens. Since this is not the XS-Pro version, I was wondering if vignetting will be an an issue when using this particular filter with the lens stopped down?
Upvote
0
insanitybeard said:
... only that correcting vignetting in post is really easy and with no problems unless the vignette was -3ev, but you cannot raise sharpness in post (yet
). As for the much discussed corner sharpness, well, I haven't got a ff body (again: yet 
) but looking at my current shots it doesn't really matter.
Upvote
0
Does anyone have any experience with the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 FX on Full Frame that they could share? Looks to be quite capable and fairly on par with the 16-35mm but just not sure. I do a lot of paid, indoor Real Estate photography and previously used a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.i with image stabilization on my 7D with outstanding results but didn't love the fit and finish of the lens compared with my L glass.
I'm now shooting my interiors with my 5D3 and being FF it's a different beast altogether for UWA lenses. So I'm not sure if I should just fork out the extra $$ for the 16-35mm II or get the Tokina 16-28m, which doesn't accept filters either, if I want to jump to some landscape work with it...
Thanks, I value your opinions and especially any experience you may have with this newer Tokina lens.
All the best!
I'm now shooting my interiors with my 5D3 and being FF it's a different beast altogether for UWA lenses. So I'm not sure if I should just fork out the extra $$ for the 16-35mm II or get the Tokina 16-28m, which doesn't accept filters either, if I want to jump to some landscape work with it...
Thanks, I value your opinions and especially any experience you may have with this newer Tokina lens.
All the best!
Upvote
0
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.insanitybeard said:
Upvote
0
Kernuak said:
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. For this reason I am interested to see what becomes of the
Upvote
0
@ 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.
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.
Upvote
0
- Status
