17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?

[BL]

I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

+1.

although sun stars on the 16-35 are more pronounced and punch harder on those smaller apertures which made the choice easy for me (that and i like to shoot handheld at times f4-f5.6, results with which i wasn't as happy with on the 17-40)

 

[expatinasia]

Nice picture, BL.

I have the 17-40L and to be very honest, if I could go back in time, I would push my hands a little deeper in my pockets and get the 16-35L. It just gives more options.

Having said that I rarely use my 17-40L as it is not the type of photography I do at all. Still, given the chance I would get the 16-35L.

Sometimes it is difficult to see past the price tag especially when there are so few supposed differences. But, as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.

 

[pwp]

I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

I've would recommend that the OP should go through the image threads for both the lenses and (i) try to see the difference in IQ; and (ii) decide which lens has "mojo" that you are looking for.

I think that sums it up - if you are shooting primarily landscapes with a tripod or are doing studio work between f/8 and f/11 it probably doesn't matter which lens you buy - you may as well choose the cheaper option which is the 17-40. If you need to shoot at f/4, the 16-35mm is probably better. And of course if you want the subject isolation you get with f/2.8 or you want to shoot action, the 16-35 is probably your choice.

+1 They're different lenses for different purposes and budgets. If you don't need UWA at f/2.8-4 then save enough for a holiday and get the 17-40. You'll probably do a straight swap $wise for your EFS 10-22.

Mojo?
mo·jo
[moh-joh]
noun, plural mo·jos, mo·joes.
1. the art or practice of casting magic spells; magic; voodoo.
2. an object, as an amulet or charm, that is believed to carry a magic spell.
3. A Cuban seasoning of garlic, olive oil, and sour (Seville) oranges used as a dip, marinade, or sauce.

Don't look to your hardware to provide the mojo, that comes from within.

-PW

 

[insanitybeard]

I own both the 10-22 and 17-40, and whilst I can only speak from experience of using both on a 7D (i.e, a crop camera), I do not believe the 17-40 will give you any 'wow' factor beyond the 10-22 if the 10-22 does not satisfy you. The 10-22 is not a perfect lens but it is a very good lens, and if you were to move up to full frame, the performance of the 17-40 at the wide end may disappoint you more than the 10-22 performance on crop. If I take a step back and look at some of the images I have taken, I don't think I can truthfully say that the performance of the lens was ever the cause of a crap or lacklustre picture. It has more to do with the manner in which I have taken the picture, the settings I have used, and probably most of all, the lighting. I enjoy mainly landscape photography and some of my most 'magical' images came down, purely and simply to the lighting, and being in the right place at the right time to capture it. Some of those images were taken with the 10-22, some were taken with the 17-40, and to me, it was the lighting that made those images, and maybe my composition, not any wow factor of the lens.

 

[Ricku]

17-40 vs 16-35 - For landscapes? None of them.

Stick with Samyang 14mm and Zeiss 21mm until Canon gets their act together and gives us a UWA-zoom that is sharp across the frame (like the crazy sharp Nikon 14-24).

 

[BL]

i find my 16-35 II plenty sharp across the frame at f11 for landscapes

how often do you shoot f2.8/f4 for landscapes? and even then, whats in the center is usually quite good

 

[JPAZ]

When I was disappointed in the "mojo" of a pic on my 50d with the 10-22, it was usually because of me, not the lens.

Now, when I am disappointed in the "mojo" on my 5d3 with the 17-40, guess what? Same....guilty as charged.

 

[bdunbar79]

I have the 16-35 f/2.8L II lens and I really like it.

 

[BL]

actually now that i think about it, i recall the 17-40 performing much better at longer focal lengths.

i dont shoot my 16-35 II at 35mm (between 2.8-5.6) because sharpness takes an unexpected dive after 28mm, which is a shame since i find the bokeh pleasant.

canon seems to think there's nothing wrong with it when i sent it in... ???

 

[Aglet]

I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

I've would recommend that the OP should go through the image threads for both the lenses and (i) try to see the difference in IQ; and (ii) decide which lens has "mojo" that you are looking for.

I think that sums it up - if you are shooting primarily landscapes with a tripod or are doing studio work between f/8 and f/11 it probably doesn't matter which lens you buy - you may as well choose the cheaper option which is the 17-40. If you need to shoot at f/4, the 16-35mm is probably better. And of course if you want the subject isolation you get with f/2.8 or you want to shoot action, the 16-35 is probably your choice.

+1
I haven't bothered with the 16-35 v1 cuz it's not sharper than the 17-40, v2 looks significantly improved.
I found the 17-40 has really poor corner performance at the wide end, mushy even when stopped down a lot. Performance varies with subject/focal distance. Seems worse at long landscape distances. But it does have a little more "something" when used on FF compared to the 10-22mm on crop, which I still do use occasionally.
FWIW, you can buy and try a used 17-40L and resell it if you don't like it and probably lose less than the rental cost.

FWIW, I've recently tried (by way of purchase) a new Tokina 17-35mm f/4, hoping to find a lens that performed better at the wide end than the 17-40 f/4 L. (to use on my FF F-mount system)
I've only done some flat-field, close-in test photos and a few other landscape types.

It's the only lens whose FF corner performance, at least on the near flat-field tests, was absolutely abysmal. Pure mush at any f stop. Real-world images at normal distances were better but still poor corner performance until about 24mm.
Accutance was otherwise quite good in center and border areas and geometric performance was very good, holding straight lines very well with minimal distortion.
However, for the price, I'd not take the Tokina over the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L.
On F-mount it's a cheap enough option to consider.

 

[yablonsky]

The 17-40 was my first lens on the 350D. The kit lens went to the trash bin. Later I used the 17-40 on my 50D.
But I was looking for more wide angle. So I bought the 10-22. This was really a disappointing lens after the 17-40! I sold it 3 weeks later because of missing contrast, distortion and CAs. So in order to get more wide angle I bought the 5D mark II. And wow, the 17-40 on FF is great! I still have it and love it.

 

[Rav]

Of the lenses I own the 17-40 was initially the biggest disappointment. Not because of the optical quality, but because I struggled to make good use of it. UWAs tend to make us take pictures that have nothing going for them except the UWA effect. Eventually I overcame this and now I like the lens, great tool if the situation calls for it. Except for the extreme corner performance I'd call the optical quality very good. The flare resistance is also impressive.

 

[Marsu42]

UWAs tend to make us take pictures that have nothing going for them except the UWA effect.

That's why I didn't buy the more expensive 16-35L, I doubt I'll use the 17-24 range that much except for macro once I get a 24-70 lens. But looking at event shots, I figured that it is important to have at least *some* uwa lens because you cannot stitch pictures like with landscape nor move out if you're with the back to a wall or a street.

Currently I like the 17-40L as a sturdy standard zoom on crop and will eventually keep doing so with my 70-300L on a ff body to skip changing lenses.

 

[angox]

I've owned the 17-40 for 1.5 years, and I think it does the job. I'm not quite sure about mojo in UWA - which, if I had to say, I would assume it to be overall technical excellence (i.e. sharpness across the frame, micro-contrast, colour, distortion, etc.). IMO, unlike fast telephoto, where you can like a lens independently from the technical specs due to its "magic look", UWA is really dependent on technical specs.

Anyway I was considering these two lens back then, but after some testing, the only determinant factors for me were aperture and price. Will you shoot at 2.8 a lot? Perhaps lot of low light work, environmental portrait? How much would you like to spare for UWA?

If you seek for the best quality, then primes (TS lenses especially) are really good.

Now I mainly use it at f8-f14 for landscape and travel with tripod. And so far, I've been satisfied with the lens.

Some samples:


07APR12 - Ruins to the Dom 3 by angox, on Flickr


[EXPLORE 10.11.2012] Venice 2 by angox, on Flickr

 

[spinworkxroy]

Personally, i do own the 17-40 but i also own the 24-70 II, and comparing both lenses at 24/35/40 at f8 and above, the 17-40 just doesn't keep up with the 24-70…even at f2.8, it's sharper than the 17-40 at f8.

i find the only real benefit is having the 17-23 range and almost all the time you can get away with that by moving back a little.

Before i had the 24-70, i used the 17-40 alot, not only for landscapes but also for street…but now, i've not touched it in a long time..

So if someone had the $ to burn for a 16-35, i would say why not just go for the 24-70II instead…it's definately going to be sharper and better..IF you can live without the UWA range..i'm personally finding i'm not missing the below 24mm range…i would rather trade that for a better overall lens

 

[Caps18]

I love my 16-35. And I do shoot quite a bit at f/2.8 when the lighting conditions aren't the best.

If the 17-40 was a f/2.8, then I would have had a harder choice.

I find that for landscapes, the 16mm on a full frame camera is very good.

 

[Marsu42]

i find the only real benefit is having the 17-23 range and almost all the time you can get away with that by moving back a little.

You make it sound like a little difference, but imho esp. on ff 17-23 is quite a lot. Stepping back is not always possible and most importantly you can only get the uwa look with a real uwa lens, esp. when the object is very near (some people even consider 24-70 "boring").

Edit: The main reason for me getting the uaw was observing a wedding shooting, and the large group was standing on 2-3 steps in a wide angle was outside the church, the photog was with his back to parked cars and the street. If he hadn't had the uwa lens, he'd couldn't have taken this group shot.

 

[RS2021]

Both lenses come to life in the hands of the right photographer...

Being wide angle lenses, neither of them are for the pixel peeping crowd... I have seen some striking photographs made with both these lenses...here is a recent one I came across on flicker. The obvious distortion IMHO actually vastly helps the mood of this picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/91499534@N00/8403207353/#sizes/c/

Edit: Just noticed in the EXIF this was with the older version of 16-35...apparently version II corrects some of this... so perhaps it is just as well he used the older version. ISO 2500 noise and pretty slow speed of 1/15th on a non stablized lens...not bad I think.