Upgrade from 17-40 f4 to 16-35 f4 IS?

[scottkinfw]

I have both and the EF 11-24mm as well. My copy of the 17-40 is particularly sharp, fell in love with it, it was my 2nd one, my first was good and a work horse but the 2nd one is amazing... That said, I picked up the 16-35 IS, not expecting much difference but wanting to try the IS because I was beginning to see some results in some of my images of a little shaking going on.. :

The 16-35 IS blew me away, I had no idea that an ultra wide could get any sharper than my excellent 17-40 copy! Additionally, what no one else has mentioned is that little extra focal length on the wide end is a huge difference to me, using this lens primarily for Real Estate work, it's allowing me to deliver much nicer, wider images to my clients.

Hey Ken.

If you had to choose over again, would you get the 11-24 or the 16-35 if the focal length of both were just fine for you work. In other words, which lens do you personally feel is superior?

Thanks.

Scott
I felt like the 16mm end was the "sweet spot" for my work! Had a large credit at an online dealer and used it to purchase the 11-24mm just to see what all the hoorah was about. I honestly had no intention on keeping it but man, that thing is sweet!! I use it more than my 16-35 IS!! Now I think 12mm is the sweet spot for Real estate work, especially in the luxury home end, very nice.

All said, I would buy the 16-35 IS in a heartbeat if I had to do it again, over my 17-40, no question. I still have the 17-40 thinking it would still have a place in my bag, like it did in my heart but I can honestly tell you, I've not used it since the first week I got the 16-35 and I was an early adopter, ordering mine within 3-4 weeks of availability. I just put my 17-40 up on Craigslist, not using it in well over a year or two, however long it's been since they came out with the 16-35 IS. So that extra mm on the wide end can be helpful too, depending on what your shooting. Great for landscapes as well...

All the best!
Ken 8)

 

[pwp]

I bought a 17-40 f/4 when they first shipped back in 2003. It was a bargain for what it delivered. It was pure mush wide open but from f/5.6 through to f/11 it was up to the task for any commercial project. It was foolishly replaced with a 16-35 f/2.8.

Hate to break it to you, but the 17-40 f/4L was not replaced by the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

In fact, the 17-40 f/4L is still sold today.

- A

Sorry Ahsanford, this may be trivial, errm...look before you leap. It may be your turn for a fact check. I'm not seeing any reference to a 16-35 f/2.8L II in my post. Nore any suggestion that Canon replaced the 17-40 f/4 with the 16-35 f/2.8.

I replaced a 17-40 with a 16-35 f/2.8.

Yes, a new 17-40 f/4 remains a current bargain buy. 8)

-pw

 

[ahsanford]

I bought a 17-40 f/4 when they first shipped back in 2003. It was a bargain for what it delivered. It was pure mush wide open but from f/5.6 through to f/11 it was up to the task for any commercial project. It was foolishly replaced with a 16-35 f/2.8.

Hate to break it to you, but the 17-40 f/4L was not replaced by the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

In fact, the 17-40 f/4L is still sold today.

- A

Sorry Ahsanford, this may be trivial, errm...look before you leap. It may be your turn for a fact check. I'm not seeing any reference to a 16-35 f/2.8L II in my post. Nore any suggestion that Canon replaced the 17-40 f/4 with the 16-35 f/2.8.

I replaced a 17-40 with a 16-35 f/2.8.

Yes, a new 17-40 f/4 remains a current bargain buy. 8)

-pw

Apologies, dude. That angle never crossed my mind. Wow.

- A

 

[pwp]

No worries. Maybe I could have been more explicit.
Anyway it probably looked like an opportunity to use that funny Fact Check in Aisle 4 image!

-pw

 

[YellowJersey]

I shot with the 17-40 f/4 for years and loved it; got some of my best shots with it. I have the 16-35mm f/4 IS and I really do like it, but it's also my most used lens.

Whether it's worth switching to the 16-35mm f/4 IS depends on a number of things.
Is it one of your most used lenses? If you shoot with it a lot, then I'd say go for it.
Do you shoot handheld? The IS is going to be really nice if you shoot handheld. On a tripod it won't make any difference.
Does the extra weight of the 16-35 bother you? The 17-40 is going to be a tad lighter.

If you don't use filters, I'd also check out the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC. It's big and heavy, but you're getting a 2.8 out of it, which could be handy, and it's roughly on par with the 16-35 f/4 IS in terms of price (at least where I live), and I'd swear the Tamron is sharper.

 

[Krob78]

I have both and the EF 11-24mm as well. My copy of the 17-40 is particularly sharp, fell in love with it, it was my 2nd one, my first was good and a work horse but the 2nd one is amazing... That said, I picked up the 16-35 IS, not expecting much difference but wanting to try the IS because I was beginning to see some results in some of my images of a little shaking going on.. :

The 16-35 IS blew me away, I had no idea that an ultra wide could get any sharper than my excellent 17-40 copy! Additionally, what no one else has mentioned is that little extra focal length on the wide end is a huge difference to me, using this lens primarily for Real Estate work, it's allowing me to deliver much nicer, wider images to my clients.

Hey Ken.

If you had to choose over again, would you get the 11-24 or the 16-35 if the focal length of both were just fine for you work. In other words, which lens do you personally feel is superior?

Thanks.

Scott
I felt like the 16mm end was the "sweet spot" for my work! Had a large credit at an online dealer and used it to purchase the 11-24mm just to see what all the hoorah was about. I honestly had no intention on keeping it but man, that thing is sweet!! I use it more than my 16-35 IS!! Now I think 12mm is the sweet spot for Real estate work, especially in the luxury home end, very nice.

All said, I would buy the 16-35 IS in a heartbeat if I had to do it again, over my 17-40, no question. I still have the 17-40 thinking it would still have a place in my bag, like it did in my heart but I can honestly tell you, I've not used it since the first week I got the 16-35 and I was an early adopter, ordering mine within 3-4 weeks of availability. I just put my 17-40 up on Craigslist, not using it in well over a year or two, however long it's been since they came out with the 16-35 IS. So that extra mm on the wide end can be helpful too, depending on what your shooting. Great for landscapes as well...

All the best!
Ken 8)

Hey Ken.

If you had to choose over again, would you get the 11-24 or the 16-35 if the focal length of both were just fine for you work. In other words, which lens do you personally feel is superior?

Thanks.

Scott

Hey Scott, that's a great question! Tell you the truth, I can't bare to part with either of them, lol!! In my book of Real Estate work, the 11-24 is superior for me, without question. It gets so wide and keeps the edges not only sharp but keeps the lines so straight with an incredibly minimal amount of distortion, many images I don't even have to make distortion adjustments for. The 16-35 however has much more (significantly more) vignetting and it does have more distortion as well, though it's pretty well controlled for the most part.

The 11-24 renders colors beautifully, and it's pretty fun to work with. It can get heavy though, depending on what the application is. I've taken it hiking before and it's a beast to carry around, especially if I've got my 100-400mm II in the bag... In those cases, I've started taking the 16-35 with me more so than the 11-24. I like the 11-24 better in Museums as well, though in some light is an issue but not terribly so.

I really love both of these lenses and can't honestly say that I'd part with either of them, I found that although they cover just a small amount of the same focal length, the part they don't are equally important to each. Sometimes I use the 11-24 for a wider pano type of shot in landscape but prefer the 70-200mm f/2.8 for true pano work.

I find my 11-24 is sharper than my 16-35 also, that said the 16-35 is plenty sharp. Additionally, as mentioned previously if I'm shooting real estate, I like the focal length of 12-14mm as the sweet spot, too wide and the rooms are giving a look that just doesn't portray the truth for my clients, buyer's when they actually get to the property, so I work hard to give the rooms an open, nice size look, without causing them to look like the size of a football field when it's the size of a coat closet...

Anyway to your question, I'm not sure Scott, I love them both and use them both. The weight of the 11-24 can be taxing at times but if I'm shooting Real estate, it's normally on my tripod, so that's not too bad. I do tend to baby it more as well, though it's a beast of a lens, it's mighty pricey and so I'm probably extra careful with it but then again, I'm pretty careful with all my gear... I'd recommend renting one for a day or two, there is a learning curve to it as well, which some have mentioned in other threads more related to this conversation.

Hope that helps in some way, sorry so long, not trying to hijack the thread.. ??? All in all, to me, the 11-24mm is the superior lens without question but that doesn't mean it's the end all to end all, the 16-35 is a hero for sure and worth every penny and worthy of much praise as well..

All the best!
Ken 8)

 

[tonblom]

I upgraded and had a very good copy of the 17-40 with excellent center sharpness. I used the wide end more, so I don't mis the 36-40 range and the 16mm is more important to me.

Upgrading depends on which range you use. You can check you photo's for that. Everything else about IS and overal sharpness has been reviewed. The bigger, better placement and smoothness of the zoom ring is an added bonus

 

[SUNDOG04]

Excellent posts and a few refreshing ideas. The 17-40 is probably the most used lens and eventually I will replace it with the 16-35 when it hopefully is reduced in price again. It would be a luxury, not a necessity. The 17-40 images look excellent and although the IS would be useful, I do carry the 24 2.8 IS lens and it is nice and light for hiking. Possibly more important would be to fill the space between the 17-40 and my 100L macro. But that is also my least used area.

 

[cycleraw]

I replaced my 17-40 L with the 16-35 L IS about 8 months ago. Why? Well when I got back from a trip to Arches National Park and began looking and printing the photos I just didn't like the photos taken with the 17-40 L as much as the photos taken with the other lenses I used on the trip (primarily the 28-70 2.8L II, 70-200 2.8 II and a few with the Sigma 50 Art). The main issue was corner sharpness, even stopped down. The 16-35 L IS fixes this issue and to me it was money well spent.

 

[slclick]

So basically the verdict is in unless you take your verdicts from devils advocates.

 

[Zv]

Sorry a bit late to this thread but since I went through the same upgrade path as OP is thinking about and with similar gear I wanted to just add a little.

I had the 17-40L for the longest time and when the 16-35 f/4 came out I decided to wait until the price came down. That took a while but it was OK as I was fairly content with my 6D and 17-40 set up. After much deliberation and great advice from my fellow CR forum members I decided to upgrade. Best decision ever!

The 16-35 f/4 is amazing and is absolutely worth every penny. The IS alone is worth it for me. Sharp all the way to the corners and a much more modern look to images (dunno how to describe it). Possibly the last UWA I will ever need. I sold the 17-40, though it was a tough sell and I didn't get all that much for it sadly but still glad it's gone. And I actually liked the 17-40, it was my workhorse! I also eventually ended up selling my Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (16mm is wide enough for me).

Is it an absolute necessity? No. Will it make you happy? Oh yeah! Better images? Hmmm well it will certainly inspire you to go out and use it! Maybe see how long you can handhold it an still get sharp images, that's a fun game to play for sure!

If you can afford just go for it.