Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L

[Canon Rumors]

<p><a href="http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/" target="_blank">Graham Clark</a> has completed a shootout between the latest Canon ultra wide angle zoom, the EF 16-35 f/4L IS and the always dependable and very popular EF 17-40 f/4L.</p>
<p>There are tons of RAW files and video to whet your appetite if you happen to be undecided between the two lenses, or if you’re not sure you want to “upgrade” your EF 17-40 f/4L. I found this to be about the most thorough review and comparison between the two lenses, as well as showcasing the EF 16-35 f/4L IS.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K7n1L1QCjqU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Graham says in his conclusions

</strong><em>“The inclusion of Image Stabilization, incredible corner sharpness and bar-none the best CA performance on corners I’ve ever seen put the Canon 16-35 F4 IS at the top of a very short list of must-get Ultra-Wide Angle Zooms. If you’re a Canon or Sony landscape and/or a travel photographer in the market for a ultra-wide angle zoom, and/or you’re looking to upgrade whatever you currently have, this is the one to get.”</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/" target="_blank">Read the full shootout at GrahamClarkPhoto.com</a></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS $1199: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=6AVWEQKBYJ7TXPHU" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA16354.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 17-40 f/4L $839: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6WO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00009R6WO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=47LMPTCRS374COKV" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA1740U.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[justawriter]

One grammar nazi point, it should be "whet your appetite" as whet is a synonym for sharpen. Wet as a verb is what a baby does to its diaper.

 

[expatinasia]

Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

 

[bholliman]

Very nicely done! I appreciate the detailed comparisons at various focal lengths and f-stops. I have been contemplating buying a 16-35 f/4 and this review helped make my decision to do it.

 

[Dylan777]

Very nicely done! I appreciate the detailed comparisons at various focal lengths and f-stops. I have been contemplating buying a 16-35 f/4 and this review helped make my decision to do it.

You gotta love cr and members with GAS ;D

 

[Etienne]

Should be compared to the 16-35 f/2.8 mkII

 

[rsk7]

He mentions needing thin UV filter preferably with double threading so lens caps stay on. But he doesn't recommend any.

Anyone know which brands/models work without adding to the vignette?

 

[fugu82]

The B+W 77mm Slim MRC Filter XS-Pro works for me.

 

[TeT]

Should be compared to the 16-35 f/2.8 mkII

No 17 40 is the proper target, the 2.8 ppl are 2.8 ppl for a reason (they will get theirs with the 2.8 IS if they are lucky in 2 years). The f4 and higher (landscape) ppl should be going apes for this one.

The 17 40 L is at its cheapest ever on eBay right now with an increase in the 17-40 volume over the past month ....

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

He mentions needing thin UV filter preferably with double threading so lens caps stay on. But he doesn't recommend any.

Anyone know which brands/models work without adding to the vignette?

There's a few expensive options out there, but not too many out there right now. So I decided to design and manufacture my own, and they should be ready to ship by November 1st or so.

If you're looking for a good option to buy immediately I'd recommend this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756191-REG/B_W_1066125_77mm_Ultraviolet_UV_MC.html/BI/19568/KBID/11943/kw/BWUVXSP77/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xBWUVXSP77

 

[candyman]

I enjoyed the review.
Just wondering if you had the time to breath.. : ....it goes so fast.

 

[expatinasia]

Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens

My comment had nothing to do with your choice of t-shirt. Seriously?! That's what you took from my comment. lol.

Choosing a bright white background like that is not wise. Plus you need a 2 or 3 second intro of something.

Very poor video, and I personally would not take any camera advice from someone that produces someone like that about a camera product.

 

[infared]

Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens

My comment had nothing to do with your choice of t-shirt. Seriously?! That's what you took from my comment. lol.

Choosing a bright white background like that is not wise. Plus you need a 2 or 3 second intro of something.

Very poor video, and I personally would not take any camera advice from someone that produces someone like that about a camera product.

WOW...after your first comment, I didn't think that you could be any ruder....but guess what, you proved me wrong!

 

[expatinasia]

WOW...after your first comment, I didn't think that you could be any ruder....but guess what, you proved me wrong!

Rude?! Pray tell, how have I been rude?

 

[infared]

Graham..thanks for the review..tee shirts aside (sheeeeesh?!)...I think you did a great job at reviewing the lens...and you kept it in the realm of your experiences and use...What you know best. I actually sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II and bought the new offering. After owning a 17mm TSE II and a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 the results from the 16-35mm f/2.8 II can many times look like soggy breakfast cereal. (I know zooms cannot generally compete with primes ..but one would think that a zoom in the price range of the 16-35mm f/2.8 II could at least show up?..good to see that Canon is improving on this with some of their newer offerings!). I find the 16-35 f/4 IS lens to be sharper, have less CA and the IS helps make up for the lack of f/2.8. I am surprised at your results as many reviews out there show a more dramatic improvement over the 17-40mm in the area of sharpness. I am thinking that you have an extremely sharp copy of the 17-40mm perhaps.

One thing that many reviewers rarely mention about the 17-40mm is the extremely short "throw" on the zoom range at the wide end... I ordered 17-40mm lens first, (before I bought my 16-35mm f/2.8 II) and as soon as I put it on my camera and experienced the truncated throw I just return it. To me there was just not any "room to zoom" at the wide end...it felt like I was at 20mm and then 17mm with no room to explore anything in between. Just did not like that "feel" when using the lens. The 16-35mm f/2.8 II and the 16-35 f/4 IS have a MUCH more pleasing zoom throw through the same focal length range than the 17-40mm.

Thanks for the review. You validate my purchase from my latest G.A.S. attack. LOL! (actually...I was able to purchase this lens & filter for what I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II & 82mm B+W filter for. So the new lens did not cost me anything. Canon did a nice job at keeping the price reasonable on the new lens).
I chose the B+W 77mm XS-Pro CLEAR MRC-Nano 010M Filter...and I am not noticing any increased vignetting.

 

[rbr]

I enjoyed the review.
Just wondering if you had the time to breath.. : ....it goes so fast.

My sentiments exactly. I would have enjoyed watching the video more if it was a few seconds longer and even slight pauses were in there to breathe. I get the impression that it was just put together in fragments and that wasn't taken into consideration. Nobody can physically talk like that non stop, so it can be uncomfortable to listen to at times.

Otherwise an excellent review.

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens

My comment had nothing to do with your choice of t-shirt. Seriously?! That's what you took from my comment. lol.

Choosing a bright white background like that is not wise. Plus you need a 2 or 3 second intro of something.

Very poor video, and I personally would not take any camera advice from someone that produces someone like that about a camera product.

Oh no... I'm heartbroken ;D

Graham

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Thanks for the review. You validate my purchase from my latest G.A.S. attack. LOL! (actually...I was able to purchase this lens & filter for what I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II & 82mm B+W filter for. So the new lens did not cost me anything. Canon did a nice job at keeping the price reasonable on the new lens).
I chose the B+W 77mm XS-Pro CLEAR MRC-Nano 010M Filter...and I am not noticing any increased vignetting.

Thanks! Glad you could find it useful.

How do you find the sharpness between the 16-35 F4 and the 16-35 2.8?

Graham

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

I enjoyed the review.
Just wondering if you had the time to breath.. : ....it goes so fast.

My sentiments exactly. I would have enjoyed watching the video more if it was a few seconds longer and even slight pauses were in there to breathe. I get the impression that it was just put together in fragments and that wasn't taken into consideration. Nobody can physically talk like that non stop, so it can be uncomfortable to listen to at times.

Otherwise an excellent review.

95% of people have short attention spans and very little time in general, tried to make the video as short as possible. That was the thinking anyways.

Graham