16-35 or 17-40?

[curtisnull]

If money is no object which lens would you choose. Obviously, the 16-35 is a full stop faster. But this isn't a lens that I would use that often. What are the pros and cons of each? Which one is better quality...I mean really better quality...not just, "well the 16-35 is the more expensive one, so it has to be better". Comments appreciated from those of you who have or have used both.

 

[verysimplejason]

17-40 = lighter, slower, filter size is the same as my other lenses.
16-35 II = heavier, faster

I've used both for landscape photography and I like the 17-40 more just because it's lighter and for the price difference, I can buy another prime lens. If you pixel peep, 16-35II is a bit sharper at the edges at open-wide apertures. However, they're almost the same from F8 and smaller. Since I use mainly F8 and smaller (most of the time F11-F13), I didn't have any trouble choosing 17-40. At night, I mostly use F1.8 primes which generally are better than the 16-35 especially when stopped down to the same max aperture of F2.8. If you're using it for events or anything where you need more light from your lens, then by all means, 16-35 II is a must. If it were me though, I prefer the newer versions of Samyang 14mm F2.8 (it's not an L though and isn't weather sealed). It's cheaper, wider and sharper.

 

[BL]

short answer: if you're shooting at f11-f16 for landscapes etc. get the 17-40 and save yourself some coin.

if you absolutely need 2.8 or better corner sharpness at f4-f8 than get the 16-35. The sunstars are much better on this lens as well imo.

 

[wickidwombat]

i frequently shoot the 16-35 wide open IMO it is well worth the extra over the 17-40
its my most used lens

 

[adhocphotographer]

I went for the 17-40 mainly because it is smaller lighter and I don't need the speed. For me the 17-40 is better, but if you are shooting low light a alot... get the 16-35!

 

[Loswr]

If money is no object which lens would you choose.

The 16-35L II. It's a stop faster, wide open IQ is better.

 

[slclick]

Why not have the extra stop if that situation arises, or possibly with the 2.8 you can create the opportunity. They both have a bit too much distortion, flare and poor corner sharpness but all in all are not too shabby. You want to talk money no object for an UWA? Get a Zeiss 15 or 21.

 

[Loswr]

You want to talk money no object for an UWA? Get a Zeiss 15 or 21.

Or the TS-E 17mm. Or heck, since money is no object, why not all three?

 

[unfocused]

If money is really no object, then obviously the 16-35. But, if money is an object then you ought to read Roger's take at Lensrentals.com on this lens:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/tokina-16-28mm-f2.8-at-x-pro-fx-for-canon

 

[mackguyver]

If money is really no object, then obviously the 16-35. But, if money is an object then you ought to read Roger's take at Lensrentals.com on this lens:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/tokina-16-28mm-f2.8-at-x-pro-fx-for-canon

I really liked my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 when I shot crop - it's a great lens other than a bit of CA, but the 16-28 has one fatal flaw, at least for my work - it has strange and really bad rainbow flare (just Google for examples). If you never shoot into the sun or other light, I'm sure it's a fine lens, but I like to shoot backlit landscapes and architecture.

 

[unfocused]

If money is really no object, then obviously the 16-35. But, if money is an object then you ought to read Roger's take at Lensrentals.com on this lens:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/tokina-16-28mm-f2.8-at-x-pro-fx-for-canon

I really liked my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 when I shot crop - it's a great lens other than a bit of CA, but the 16-28 has one fatal flaw, at least for my work - it has strange and really bad rainbow flare (just Google for examples). If you never shoot into the sun or other light, I'm sure it's a fine lens, but I like to shoot backlit landscapes and architecture.

Interesting. Thanks for the tip. Followed your advice and those rainbow flares are a little strange. On the other hand, the internets don't seem to be exactly burning up with complaints. In fact, seems like more positives than negatives. Depends on one's needs and wants. Just mentioned it as an alternative for those to whom price is an object.

Did find this comparison as well. http://www.slrlounge.com/wide-angle-showdown-canon-16-35mm-l-ii-vs-tokina-16-28mm

 

[mackguyver]

Interesting. Thanks for the tip. Followed your advice and those rainbow flares are a little strange. On the other hand, the internets don't seem to be exactly burning up with complaints. In fact, seems like more positives than negatives. Depends on one's needs and wants. Just mentioned it as an alternative for those to whom price is an object.

Did find this comparison as well. http://www.slrlounge.com/wide-angle-showdown-canon-16-35mm-l-ii-vs-tokina-16-28mm

I can't watch the video right now, but it sounds interesting. The 16-35 II certainly isn't the perfect lens, but I think it's the best choice (for a FF zoom) given the compromises, though the 17-40 has plenty of merit for many uses.

I wish I could find the photos that turned me off to the Tokina, but I was all but set to buy it when I saw them. The photos (and there were dozens) showed night shots and sunrises and nearly all of them had hugely distracting half-moon shaped rainbow flare around every light source. Most reviewers pay lip service to flare, so it's probably not something you'd see until you used the lens yourself.

Personally, I'm really disappointed as it seems to kill the 16-35 on IQ in many ways, and the price is very nice.

 

[StudentOfLight]

You want to talk money no object for an UWA? Get a Zeiss 15 or 21.

Or the TS-E 17mm. Or heck, since money is no object, why not all three?

Where is the like button!

 

[curtisnull]

Thanks for the replies. Money is an object when considering some suggestions to buy every Zeiss prime in that focal range. Hover money isn't an factor when comparing an $800 lens to a $1400 lens.

I actually own the 17-40. It's a great lens. It is my oldest Canon lens now at about 10 years old. I used to use it often when I shot crop sensor bodies, but now that I am all full-frame, I don't use it as much.

What prompted this post is should I try to talk myself into getting the 16-35 since it is on rebate now (B&H for $1398) or just keep the 17-40. The 17-40 is my slowest lens now, but other than being f4, I am happy with it.

Still can't decide what to do. When will Canon have a 14-24??????

Also, I've learned my lesson a few times over by buying non-Canon lenses. Sorry, some of you might think that decision is short-sighted, but I have never really gone wrong with a Canon lens. The only brand that I would really consider besides Canon is Zeiss. That comes from many many years shooting Hasselblads back in the film days.

 

[BL]

If you buy now and canon releases something else down the line, you're still ahead.

I bought my 16-35 II for $1250 back in 2008. I sold it last year for $1218 on ebay. It's like I had a free 6 year rental and have thousands of images to show for it.

If your gear is clean and looks pristine, L lenses hold their value exceptionally well. Take the pictures you want now and sell it for little to no loss, using those funds to buy the next new thing that comes along.

 

[curtisnull]

If you buy now and canon releases something else down the line, you're still ahead.

I bought my 16-35 II for $1250 back in 2008. I sold it last year for $1218 on ebay. It's like I had a free 6 year rental and have thousands of images to show for it.

If your gear is clean and looks pristine, L lenses hold their value exceptionally well. Take the pictures you want now and sell it for little to no loss, using those funds to buy the next new thing that comes along.

Thats very true. I usually wait until lenses hit a low point on price when I buy. I have done very well selling them later. Canon L lenses tend to hold their value very very well.