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

[beforeEos Camaras]

hello all

right now I have a 5dmk3 and I am using a 20-35 3.5 -4.5 usm as my uwa lens

before that I used the 10-22 efs lens with my 70D

the 17-40 has a price value over the 16-35 is 4. image stabling is something I don't need on a uwa. as I use a tripod for landscape.

its more for a all around walk around lens. I use the 20-35 for that reason but its old and I need to retire the lens no lens hood most likely no repair parts as well.

 

[bholliman]

I can't comment on the 17-40 since I've never used one. I do own a 16-35 f/4 IS and love it! Excellent optically, a terrific landscape and walk-around lens. I find image stabilization handy in low light situations where I don't have my tripod with me or can't use one (indoor tours, etc.). I've found I can take sharp pictures of still subjects at down to 1/4 second, which I find pretty amazing.

Using the TDP lens image quality tool, the 16-35 is much sharper away from the center of the frame.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. To me the 16-35 is probably worth the additional $200-250 in cost, but that decision is different for everybody.

 

[slclick]

16-35 f/4 for certain. Better copy to copy variation, sharper corners, sharper centers, wider, newer coatings etc. This is an easy choice.

 

[digital-jesus]

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

 

[jprusa]

I have both , the 17-40 was good lens but the 16-35 is sharper. and I like it much better.

 

[Luds34]

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

My vote would be no, I'd hold on to the 17-40.

Unless of course you got a $1k burning a hole in your pocket, then why not!

 

[TeT]

I love/loved the 20 35 L; that was such an awesome lens.

Looks like used from reputable sellers on eBay in auction style listings with bag and hood the 17 40 goes $400 to $450

of course you have buyer protection with eBay. so you have a little time to check it out and make sure it is all good.

That is a good (and fair) price for that lens, don't spend $600

 

[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.

The 17-40 is a reasonable lens it is just that the 16-35 f4 IS is a much better one, and the used prices reflect that, if you are in the $400 lens market you are not in the $800 lens market.

 

[drob]

I grabbed the 16-35 f4 IS and love it, very sharp. I didn't want to purchase new though so I held off and found it on Canons refurbished site. If you have the patience you might want to hold out and search there.

 

[IglooEater]

Most of us stop down considerably for landscape. Stopped down, the advantage of the 16-35 is a bit less: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

At half the price the 17-40 looks like a deal.

If you'd rather be free from a tripod however, the 16-35 is the way to go.

 

[Sabaki]

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.

+1!

 

[bitm2007]

the 17-40 has a price value over the 16-35 is 4. image stabling is something I don't need on a uwa. as I use a tripod for landscape.

I've owned and used both lenses exclusively for tripod mounted landscape images. On full frame the corner sharpness differential between the two is considerable, I didn't even need to do a side by side comparison to come to the conclusion that the 16-35mm was a keeper. If you don't need an extra stop of light for low light landscape photography (star trials, milk way shots etc), I would recommend it without hesitation.

 

[AdamBotond]

I also have owned both. As it has been said, the 16-35 F4 L IS is far superior in every aspect. It is the ultimate wide-angle lens in my kit. If you can afford it, go for it! However, I found it too wide even at 35mm for general walk-around. For that purpose, I would rather go with a 24-70 F2.8 (version I), which is more versatile in my opinion.

Adam

hello all

right now I have a 5dmk3 and I am using a 20-35 3.5 -4.5 usm as my uwa lens

before that I used the 10-22 efs lens with my 70D

the 17-40 has a price value over the 16-35 is 4. image stabling is something I don't need on a uwa. as I use a tripod for landscape.

its more for a all around walk around lens. I use the 20-35 for that reason but its old and I need to retire the lens no lens hood most likely no repair parts as well.

 

[slclick]

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

My vote would be no, I'd hold on to the 17-40.

Unless of course you got a $1k burning a hole in your pocket, then why not!

Canon lenses holds their value. If you have the original box, hood, caps and bag/case you can usually get at least the refurb price. Sometimes I make more than what I paid. I write this since there is little to no reason to keep a 17-40 when picking up the 16-35 f/4. Fund glass with glass.

 

[Luds34]

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

My vote would be no, I'd hold on to the 17-40.

Unless of course you got a $1k burning a hole in your pocket, then why not!

Canon lenses holds their value. If you have the original box, hood, caps and bag/case you can usually get at least the refurb price. Sometimes I make more than what I paid. I write this since there is little to no reason to keep a 17-40 when picking up the 16-35 f/4. Fund glass with glass.

Valid point about resale, that would help offset the costs of the upgrade. And I'll admit, as a 17-40 owner I will keep my eyes open and some day I'll probably upgrade.

However in terms of stopped down landscape shooting? This video/review doing a direct comparison of the two really made me think you'll do just fine with a 17-40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7n1L1QCjqU

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

thank you all for the input.

now I got to decide if I want to reach for the 16-35 or just go with the 17-40

I find that 35 is good for me as a walk around as I tend not to take candid's of fokes more vistas and passing crowds.

 

[cycleraw]

I owned the 17-40L for several years and then a few months ago I got a 16-35 f/4L IS loaner from CPS and WOW. I quickly sold my 17-40L for $425 and purchased the 16-35 f4/L IS. I found the center sharpness about the same but the corners are way better.

 

[pwp]

16-35 f/4 for certain. Better copy to copy variation, sharper corners, sharper centers, wider, newer coatings etc. This is an easy choice.

+1...yep the 16-35 f/4is tends to have better everything. Note the superior copy to copy variation.

OP, you do say that walk-around is one of the functions for your new lens. This presumes no tripod. As a full time photographer who has used the dreadful old 17-35L (introduced 1996) followed by 8 years with the 17-40 f/4, followed by a few disappointing years with the 16-35 f/2.8II. A couple of months ago I picked up the new 16-35 f/4is. What slclick says is true. It's a highly dependable lens. Read the reviews. They're overwhelmingly positive.

The 17-40 f/4 (introduced 13 years ago in 2003) remains good value in some respects, but is really showing its age now. There may be rare copies around that are actually sharp wide open but most deliver pure mush at f/4. One click down to f/5.6 and it's very capable right through to f/11. I tended to think of mine as a 17-40 f/5.6.

The clincher for me came from a colleague who shoots a lot of difficult aerial projects. The client needed dusk aerials of their casino with the giant gas flares lit up, but showing the adjacent river and the city skyline as well. So by implication it was a wide shot. Shooting out of even a very smooth helicopter at dusk is going to be a huge challenge. As a form of insurance he shot with three bodies. One with 24-70 f/2.8II, one with 16-35 f/2.8II and a third body with a loaned 16-35 f/4is. And guess what? Even giving away a stop in brightness, the 16-35 f/4is convincingly saved the day (and a lot of money).

Get the picture from this and other posts? The 16-35 f/4is is a class act. For the first time in twenty years I have a UWA zoom that I can trust wide open for projects from very discriminating clients. If you can't afford it, save for it.

-pw

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

16-35 f/4 for certain. Better copy to copy variation, sharper corners, sharper centers, wider, newer coatings etc. This is an easy choice.

+1...yep the 16-35 f/4is tends to have better everything. Note the superior copy to copy variation.

OP, you do say that walk-around is one of the functions for your new lens. This presumes no tripod. As a full time photographer who has used the dreadful old 17-35L (introduced 1996) followed by 8 years with the 17-40 f/4, followed by a few disappointing years with the 16-35 f/2.8II. A couple of months ago I picked up the new 16-35 f/4is. What slclick says is true. It's a highly dependable lens. Read the reviews. They're overwhelmingly positive.

The 17-40 f/4 (introduced 13 years ago in 2003) remains good value in some respects, but is really showing its age now. There may be rare copies around that are actually sharp wide open but most deliver pure mush at f/4. One click down to f/5.6 and it's very capable right through to f/11. I tended to think of mine as a 17-40 f/5.6.

The clincher for me came from a colleague who shoots a lot of difficult aerial projects. The client needed dusk aerials of their casino with the giant gas flares lit up, but showing the adjacent river and the city skyline as well. So by implication it was a wide shot. Shooting out of even a very smooth helicopter at dusk is going to be a huge challenge. As a form of insurance he shot with three bodies. One with 24-70 f/2.8II, one with 16-35 f/2.8II and a third body with a loaned 16-35 f/4is. And guess what? Even giving away a stop in brightness, the 16-35 f/4is convincingly saved the day (and a lot of money).

Get the picture from this and other posts? The 16-35 f/4is is a class act. For the first time in twenty years I have a UWA zoom that I can trust wide open for projects from very discriminating clients. If you can't afford it, save for it.

-pw

thank you for your reply yes it will be a walk around and I do listen to the advice given new the 17-40 is 749 usd this month and the 16-35l is 4.0 is 999 or a difference of 250 usd plus 7% tax.
I have a 28-135 I can use as a trade in. so when I travel to cape cod on Friday ill have a new lens.

 

[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.