f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL

[Marsu42]

My advice is to skip both lenses and adapt a Nikon 14-24mm. Both Canon offerings are incredibly horrible.

By directly comparing a $800 17-40L landscape lens with rather flexible focal length with a dedicated uwa zoom 2.5x the price you can only end up with a trollish conclusion.

To the op: Try using the search field and feel free to browse through some the other 100 dedicated 17-40L vs 16-35L threads

 

[dppaskewitz]

To the op: Try using the search field and feel free to browse through some the other 100 dedicated 17-40L vs 16-35L threads

+1 (Actually, there are only 81, but who is counting?)

 

[tiger82]

I upgraded from the 17-40L to the 16-35L II and the extra stop comes in handy not to mention the more expensive lens has better IQ in my opinion. I went with 17-40L initially until I could get the funds for 16-35L. With my CPS membership, I was able to get loaners of both. The 17-40L did an acceptable job of shooting landscapes and cityscapes and you may be perfectly happy with it but I needed the extra capabilty of the 16-35L for "light" reasons.

 

[mrsfotografie]

To the op: Try using the search field and feel free to browse through some the other 100 dedicated 17-40L vs 16-35L threads

+1 (Actually, there are only 81, but who is counting?)

Who really cares about that, it's too much fun just to discuss and get the newest insights

 

[Jemlnlx]

Have had both. First the 17-40 a few years back and then I switched to the 16-35mm II which is a great lens. Hefty lens that feels like a true L lens. I got a really great deal on it ($800 - UZ Date Code) from a local person that really needed to get rid of it asap. I couldn't justify the extra stop of light, 1mm wider view plus a slightly better corner sharpness for the price difference, so I sold it for $1200 and got a great deal on a 17-40mm for $525. Having $675 in my pocket was worth more than the pros, at least for me.

Also you'll be spending about 25% more on filters with the 16-35mm. 82mm v. 77mm.

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

I haven't tried the 16-35 but I will say the corners on my 17-40 are terrible. When your at the wider side of the lens, the corners are filled with chromatic aberration. When I was shooting on crop, it was a great lens but now it definitely falls short of expectations. I've had to crop some of my photos taken at 17 (even stopped down to f/11 or greater) because the corners were unusable. This maybe just my battle torn lens needing some realignment sense the bottom left corner is the biggest problem.

 

[Marsu42]

This maybe just my battle torn lens needing some realignment sense the bottom left corner is the biggest problem.

That would be it, get it repaired - I got even my new lens unaligned and had it replaced. Most CA is easily corrected nowadays, and the corner problem (if you take shots that need this) of the 17-40L diminishes a lot if stopped down - be sure to check with existing sample shots on the net after repair to see if it works properly by then.

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

This maybe just my battle torn lens needing some realignment sense the bottom left corner is the biggest problem.

That would be it, get it repaired - I got even my new lens unaligned and had it replaced. Most CA is easily corrected nowadays, and the corner problem (if you take shots that need this) of the 17-40L diminishes a lot if stopped down - be sure to check with existing sample shots on the net after repair to see if it works properly by then.

So send it to Canon? How long and how much would you guess?

 

[Marsu42]

So send it to Canon? How long and how much would you guess?

If you've got cps there are max. times depending on cps level ... but since you ask you're probably just a plain ol' Canon customer, so call them, usually they have a very good idea how long a non-cps repair takes.

And ask for the price estimate, it saves you a heart attack later on if you're warned :-o but a decentered lens that shows iq degradation even stopped down doesn't leave you much of a choice.