I could not decide between the 16-35mm options

[procentje20]

My budget allowed the purchase of a 16-35mm 2.8 II from the used market, or a new f4 IS variant. I ended up testing a few used lensen which were near me. I rented the 16-35mm 2.8 II, which i liked. And after a while I was leaning towards this lens over the IS version.

And then yesterday, I bought the 17-40mm for less then half my budget. Because I just don't see why the price difference is so humungous. And I used to own this lens once, and its a decent ultrawide zoom.

Has anyone else made a U-turn like this? Or am I insane for buying an inferior lens.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Nothing wrong with Canon 17-40mm if you shoot F8 or more closed.

If you need to shoot at f4 and get decent sharpness in the image corners, then 16-35mm F4 IS will be the best choice.

 

[Luds34]

My budget allowed the purchase of a 16-35mm 2.8 II from the used market, or a new f4 IS variant. I ended up testing a few used lensen which were near me. I rented the 16-35mm 2.8 II, which i liked. And after a while I was leaning towards this lens over the IS version.

And then yesterday, I bought the 17-40mm for less then half my budget. Because I just don't see why the price difference is so humungous. And I used to own this lens once, and its a decent ultrawide zoom.

Has anyone else made a U-turn like this? Or am I insane for buying an inferior lens.

Nope, you are not alone. I picked up a 6D back in March and have been slowly switching out lenses to make a better full frame kit. I was very happy with what my Tokina 11-16 could do on crop, and wanted an UWA lens I could use on the 6D. I had my mind made up to get the 16-35 f/4L IS but then found a 17-40 for $400 on craigslist. I just couldn't say no. I figure worse case I can probably sell it for what I bought it for a year later and upgrade if need be. But in the short time I've had the 17-40 it has exceeded my expectations.

 

[privatebydesign]

Because I just don't see why the price difference is so humungous.

Between the 17-40 and 16-35 f2.8 II there is no real reason for the price difference, unless you need f2.8, or twice the light, or twice the shutter speed, or half the iso!

But compared to the 16-35 f4L IS both are very poor performers from an IQ standpoint, and whilst IS is not a replacement for aperture it can often help. The point being the 16-35 f4L IS is a quantum leap in Canon ultrawide performance not seen since the $2,100 17 TS-E, and it out performs that lens as well as the $3,000 11-24 where they cross over.

The 16-35 f4L IS is a bargain and a very high quality piece of glass.

 

[Dylan777]

The lesson I learned when buying lenses. Get a highest quality that you can afford. Don't buy a lens just because it on SALE.

Agree with privatebydesign on 16-35 f4 IS Vs 17-40/16-35 f2.8 II

 

[Phenix205]

I traded my 16-35 2.8 for the 4 IS. I only use it for landscape/architecture and video. For these two purposes, I need sharpness to the corners, and IS. To me, it is a much better lens than 17-40 overall. For many, IS for a UWA seems to be unnecessary, but I just like it for being able to shoot some features in a dark church handheld while achieving relative deep DOF.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Between the 17-40 and 16-35 f2.8 II there is no real reason for the price difference, unless you need f2.8, or twice the light, or twice the shutter speed, or half the iso!

But compared to the 16-35 f4L IS both are very poor performers from an IQ standpoint, and whilst IS is not a replacement for aperture it can often help. The point being the 16-35 f4L IS is a quantum leap in Canon ultrawide performance not seen since the $2,100 17 TS-E, and it out performs that lens as well as the $3,000 11-24 where they cross over.

The 16-35 f4L IS is a bargain and a very high quality piece of glass.

I agree with privatebydesign, I had owned all current Canon UWA and some Tokina lenses, except for the new 11-24mm and the best choice has been the 16-35 f4L IS in terms of IQ and sharpness wide open. I found the 17-40mm IQ at f/4 to be good but not excellet at the center and mid-frame but, poor at the borders of the image. I sold this lens later for the 16-35mm f2.8L II and sold the latter to get the new 16-35 f4L IS.

 

[romanr74]

The lesson I learned when buying lenses. Get a highest quality that you can afford. Don't buy a lens just because it on SALE.

Agree with privatebydesign on 16-35 f4 IS Vs 17-40/16-35 f2.8 II

could not possibly agree more - with both dylan777 and privatebydesign.