17-40 l advice vers the 16-35l 4.0

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you are looking for a new lens, I'd buy the 16-35mm F/4. However, if you stop down to f/8 or smaller apertures, there is no need to buy a expensive lens, just use a coke bottle (All lenses are pretty much the same at f/11, and close at f/8.)

What you are paying for is excellent performance at the widest aperture along with good construction and improved consistency of AF. If you are at f/11 or f/16, keep your 20-35 mm lens.

 

[ins0mniac]

I used to love the EF-S 10-22 on my T2i. After I switched to 6D, I got the 17-40. I was somewhat surprised to see the clear improvement in IQ as I felt that the 10-22 was "L quality". Admittedly the IQ difference could partly be due the FF sensor. I was pretty happy with it. However, there came a time when I was missing shots due to not being able to use tripod in some situations, for example, on family outings with a toddler . That's when I decided to upgrade to 16-35 f/4. I sold mine for $500 on ebay, and waited for a sale on Canon refurbished store and got it for $815. I found sharpness better than the 17-40 everywhere in the frame, although it's hard to notice in small sizes. However, what really amazed me is the ability to get sharp shots at 1/4 sec!! Someone told me that you can photograph waterfalls without a tripod with this lens. Can't wait to try that.

 

[Luds34]

I agree with others, if buying brand new there is no decision, pick up the 16-35 for the extra ~200 bucks. However, if you're willing to go check out the secondary market you'll quickly find that the 17-40 can be had for pretty cheap, 400 bucks for example.

 

[privatebydesign]

And for those like me who already have 17-40 ? justifies the purchase for landscape photography ?

I'd have to say yes, the 16-35 f4 IS is one of Canon's best lenses, it truthfully is, and it marks their first real high quality UWA zoom.

Don't waste your money on buying a 17-40/f4L.

Well maybe buy one if it is like $200 or so.

Garbage, I just sold a used one with a few chips in the hood mount ring but complete with the box, hood, bag, and all original packaging for $425 off CL, it got a lot of calls too.

You ripped them off.

You clearly know zero about used lens prices. I sold mine within a few hours because it was under priced, here are a few recent eBay SOLD listings.

It is well known that people buy things on eBay for more than they are worth. If I was selling a lens, I'd sell it on eBay too. If I was buying a lens, I wouldn't buy it from eBay. But that's just me.

If $749 is store price, ~$816 over the counter, $370-$410 is the 50% range. That'd be ok if the lens wasn't crap on a full frame camera. On an APS-C camera, the 17-40 is ok, kind of.

Occasionally people might bid too high on eBay, but it is asinine to say "people buy things on eBay for more than they are worth", clearly the price they pay is what it is worth to them! And the images I showed you illustrate that to many people the 17-40 is worth $450-525 secondhand.

Besides, I said I sold mine on CL, where people don't 'pay too much'. Clearly those in the real world don't agree with your opinion.

By the way, how much have you actually shot with the 17-40 on a full frame camera, or is your opinion based on no real world experience at all?

 

[Hjalmarg1]

And for those like me who already have 17-40 ? justifies the purchase for landscape photography ?

If you are a pixel peeper, the 16-35mm/4L IS is the clear winner from mid-frame to borders, especially at wider apertures.
the 17-40mm is a better value lens but is not perfect. For most uses the 17-40mm will be enough but I replaced my 17-40mm by the 16-35mm and I haven't look back because it is very fast AF, accurate, great color rendition and offers better borders sharpness

 

[Zv]

I currently have both 17-40L and the 16-35 f/4. I've been trying to sell my 17-40 but that's another story.

The 16-35 f/4 is far superior to the 17-40 in many ways. Yeah the 17-40 is cheaper and great value for those on a bit of a budget. However if stretching finances is an option I'd recommend going for the 16-35.

Corner sharpness is impressive, even without pixel peeping you can notice it. At 16mm it performs beautifully which is great as that's where it gets used most. Also 16mm vs 17mm - as a wide angle fan it makes a difference!

 

[bitm2007]

Corner sharpness is impressive, even without pixel peeping you can notice it. At 16mm it performs beautifully which is great as that's where it gets used most. Also 16mm vs 17mm - as a wide angle fan it makes a difference!

Exactly. if your serious about landscape photography corner sharpness is of paramount importance. For that reason alone the 16-35mm is a no brainier in my opinion.

 

[GuyF]

Had the 17-40 for a few years and got some great shots but sold it for the 16-35 f4 which is head and shoulders above it in terms of image quality. Also don't underestimate the benefits of IS on a UWA lens!

 

[d]

I briefly owned and used the 17-40, and found it to be an average performer, selling it after a few months. While it may well be "good enough" for many purposes, I think it's worth paying a bit more and getting the 16-35 f/4 IS, especially if you're planning on keeping it longer-term.

d.

 

[insanitybeard]

I've used both, only on a crop (7D) body admittedly but even there the superior IQ of the 16-35 IS is evident. The 17-40 had a slight corner mushiness and a little visible CA at the wide end, which is virtually absent on the 16-35 IS. Also, I've found the IS fantastic for low light shots- both inside and outside at dusk!

 

[Ladislav]

If the goal is to have a walk around lens than investment into IS is really worth it. I love my 16-35 L IS and I use it as the main city walk around lens but I prefer 24-70 as a walk around in country side.

 

[JonAustin]

I got back into SLR photography with the 10D back in 2003, and bought a (then recently-announced) 17-40L within a month to replace the 24-85 kit lens. I paid $770 at a local retail store, and got a very good copy. Used it on the 10D and then a 20D as my walk-around lens, and was quite satisfied with it.

When I moved to full frame with the 5D in 2007, I found the 17-40 less impressive in the outer edges of the enlarged frame. Still, I continued to use it, as I didn't need anything faster, there really wasn't a better quality UWA zoom available, and I don't shoot UWA all that often.

I sold that 17-40, still in excellent condition, with all original accessories and packaging, about 2 years ago for $600 on Craigslist. The buyer contacted me a few weeks later (after he had taken the lens with him on a trip to Europe) to tell me it was one of the best transactions he had ever had on CL.

Six months later (end of 2014), I picked up a new 16-35/4L IS in a Canon Price Watch sale for $996. It's still my least-used zoom (I confess to a bit of G.A.S.), but I find the experience of using it more satisfying when using its IS, and the results appreciably better than with the 17-40.

To the O.P.: If you can afford it, and you're going to keep the lens "forever," go ahead and spring for the 16-35. If funds are really tight (since you have your 20-35 to shoot with in the meantime), wait for a sale, a rebate or a refurb. If you go for the 17-40 and then find yourself displeased with the quality of images you get from it, you'll eventually move up to the 16-35, anyway.

 

[gregorywood]

I've had both lenses. I had the 17-40 for almost two years using it on a 6D mostly and sometimes on the 7D. I liked the price point, the range being that it went to 40mm, and generally speaking it was good for it's intended use. In my world, that is some landscape, some walk around city shooting and any situation where i needed width but didn't have much depth space to work with.

I had read a lot of material and reviews and decided to make the investment. What struck me first was that the 16-35 seemed a bit quicker to focus. I like the way it felt physically and there were several notable improvements. On the output side, comparing similar types of shots, the IQ of the 16-35 is sharper, especially out in the corners. The IS is a great asset when it's needed. I can shoot handheld down to some very low shutter speeds (1/15 and less) and retain sharpness. It also seems to have a bit better contrast. Overall, I find the images more appealing.

The 17-40 is not a bad lens at all. I was on the fence about tossing another $500 at a lens of a similar design, although improved - I couldn't quantify if the improvements were enough. I've had it for nearly a year now and I don't regret the purchase.

Just my experience...hope that helps in some way.

 

[Hector1970]

I've had both lens too.
The 17-40mm was a great lens while I was using it. It's rock solid.
I just found the 16-35 F4 IS even better. The IS is very useful for handheld work.
I wasn't expecting this. I thought IS wouldn't be of much real use at such a wide angle but it is beneficial.
The 17-40mm is reasonable sharp, certainly very sharp in the centre and a little softer at the edges.
The 16-35mm is sharper all-round. The margins are small but do make a difference.
You won't go to far wrong with either lens but if you can afford it the 16-35mm is the better lens.

 

[markhbfindlay]

I would get the 16-35mm F4. The extra 1mm at the wide end is not to be forgotten about.

 

[JonAustin]

Re: 17-40L advice vs. the 16-35/4L IS

I would get the 16-35mm F4. The extra 1mm at the wide end is not to be forgotten about.

Also not to be forgotten about are the lens hoods.

It seems like a small point -- and one I forgot to include in my previous post -- but the hood on the 17-40 is (IMO) atrocious: very wide and shallow; difficult to efficiently get the lens into a bag or backpack with the hood reverse-mounted, and difficult to safely pack the unattached hood without worrying about it getting broken.

The 16-35's hood, by contrast, is narrower and deeper; it's much easier to pack the lens with its hood reverse-mounted.

I can't speak to the relative effectiveness of either hood vs. no hood, as I always shoot with the hood attached, both for shading and front element protection (even when, as in the case of the 17-40, both seem to be minimal).

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

thank you all for the input. I have gone with the 16-35l 4.0 is lens

even the store where I buy my gear also recommended the 16-35 and I had a full hands on with the lens.

it was the right choice. the lens rounds out my range I now can shoot 16-400 with 3 lenses

 

[d]

Nice, glad you got what you were after! Post some pics from it when you get a chance.

Cheers,
d.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

Nice, glad you got what you were after! Post some pics from it when you get a chance.

Cheers,
d.

I will the lens is fantastic eps with sunsets a very small amount of lens flare.

 

[slclick]

Nice, glad you got what you were after! Post some pics from it when you get a chance.

Cheers,
d.

I will the lens is fantastic eps with sunsets a very small amount of lens flare.

It also makes great sunstars at f/16