User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  12
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: 16-35mm L or the 17-40mm L

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Nov 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    16-35mm L or the 17-40mm L

    Going to full frame is frightening the Shiites out of me!!

    I'm having to look at ditching my fav lens (EF-s 10-22mm) in my bag for "hopefully" an upgrade to a "L" series equivalent for the full frame 5d mII.

    Has anyone gone through the similar process?
    What lens did you end up settling on? the 16-35 or the 17-40?

    My biggest fear is that if I choose the cheaper 17-40mm that the optics will be less than the 10-22mm. To avoid this I'm leading towards the "twice the price" 16-35L because of this reason.

    With the 17-40, I wouldn't miss the 1mm difference at the wide end, nor the faster f stop compared to the 16-35 but I'm not willing to compromise any image quality compared to my beloved 10-22mm ef-s (which is similar in price to the 17-40mm L)

    is the $800 difference really noticeable in the image quality when shooting above f/4 on between these lenses?

    Another pro for the 17-40mm is there will be no need to get new filters, as I can't imagine how expensive a ND Grad filter set or slim UV would be for the 16-35mm let alone a 400 ND

    Anyone had any real world experience for the dilemma I'm going through?

    Your thoughts on choice?

    Cheers

    Tim
    N.A.C.S! (not another canon shooter!)
    Gripped 5D m3, Gripped 5D m2, Eos M body, Go pro Black, 17-40L, 24-70L, 50mm f/1.8 , 100mm f/2.8 macro, 24-135mm EFs, 70-200 f/2.8L, 580 exII, 530 ex
    www.f13magazine.com

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Which 16-35 are you talking about as there are 2. The first version uses the same filter size as the 10-22 and 17-40 so I assume you mean the 16-35 II with the 82mm filter.

    I've never used the latest 16-35 so I can't comment but I have the 10-22 and 17-40 and I find the 17-40 to be a much better lens than the 10-22. The 10-22 is average at best, although I know plenty of people like it, and I've found mine to be barely adequate and my current copy is much better than my first copy. The 17-40 is much sharper at every aperture.

    The 17-40 is almost as good (sharp) as most of the wide angle primes on the market and it's main optical failing is that it tends to drop off in sharpness outside the central area but you'll probably not even notice this is normal use. The 17-40 is an excellent lens.

    A couple of examples at close range;

    Leica R 24/2.8 at F4 (100% crop)


    Canon 17-40/4 L at F4 (100% crop)


    A couple of examples at Infinity;

    Leica R 24/2.8 at F4 (100% crop)


    Canon 17-40/4 L at F4 (100% crop)


    The Leica R 24 is a very nice lens and the 17-40 is only slightly behind it in centre sharpness. This is much better than you'd expect from the 10-22!

    JJ

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    with the abundance of tests of the 17-40 L on full frame and on APSC sensors, the 17-40 is one of the least impressive L lenses in the Canon line up atm, on full frame that is, very very soft and mushy on the borders as it loses the details a lot.

    you can see lab results at www.photozone.de

    so yes, there is a big difference between the 2, and if anyway disagrees, they should use both lenses and print out some big enlargements like I did to see a difference, or go check out internet comparisons.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    20 Mar 2008
    Location
    Glenorchy
    Posts
    4,040
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Go with the 16-35. I had that lens when I shot with Canon and is superb, well worth the price. I bought mine used via the forum, a member knew of one in his home town and I got a very good price for an absolutely A1 MkII version. You will not regret going full frame and getting this lens. For 35mm landscape and other wide angle genres I think it is definitely up near the top of the pile in quality and clarity (I haven't tried other brands, but they'd go hard to beat it).
    Odille

    “Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky”

    My Blog | Canon 1DsMkII | 60D | Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 AF AT-X PRO | EF50mm f/1.8| Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM | Fujifilm X-T1 & X-M1 | Fujinon XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS | Fujinon XC 50-230mm F3.5-5.6 OIS | Fujinon XF 18-55mm F2.8-4R LM OIS | tripods, flashes, filters etc ||

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Sep 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    306
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have the the 17 40 and wish I had saved for the 16 35II

    Cheers

  6. #6
    Ausphotography Site Sponsor/Advertiser DAdeGroot's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Feb 2009
    Location
    Cedar Creek, Qld, Australia
    Posts
    1,890
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While the 17-40L is a definite improvement over the 10-20, I'll echo the above sentiments and say the 16-35L II is better. Not much in it at the long end, with the 17-40 possibly edging out the 16-35 there, but at the wide end the 16-35 wins hands down on corner and side sharpness. I have used both (and own the cheaper 17-40). Planning on replacing the 17-40 this year with a 17 TSE and 35/1.4L.
    Dave

    http://www.degrootphotography.com.au/
    Canon EOS 1D MkIV | Canon EOS 5D MkII | Canon EOS 30D | Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM | Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L & some non-L lenses.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2007
    Location
    Caboolture, Sunshine Coast
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Dave, is the edge sharpness on the 17-40 an issue at all apertures or only wide open? Looking to get this lens but will rarely use it at anything wider then f/8.
    Canon 50D - Zuiko 28/2.8 50/1.8 100/2.8 - Tokina 11-16/2.8

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by terry.langham View Post
    Hey Dave, is the edge sharpness on the 17-40 an issue at all apertures or only wide open? Looking to get this lens but will rarely use it at anything wider then f/8.
    only if u plan to use it for a lot of landscape stuff where sharpness across the whole range is needed. The 17-40 on the extreme borders at heavily detailed scenes such as trees and foilage in a forest for example - the lens cannot resolve enough details, especially on high MP sensors such as the 5D2 - and the details will end up looking mushy when one zooms in, or prints large. This is even when you stop down to F8 and F11 not just wide open at F4.

    I have used the 17-40 before for fashion stuff and its centre sharpness is fine and great, as I had no care nor need for corner performance.

  9. #9
    Shore Crawler Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Another advantage of the 16-35mm is that it goes open to F2.8
    If you plan on doing night exposures with frozen stars in mind, this again gives you more versatility over the 17-40 (over and above the reasons mentioned)
    Most of the landscapes I take with the 16-35 are not suprisingly at 16mm as well , so being used to it, that extra 1mm might make a difference especially in edge resolution for landscapes.
    Call me Dylan! www.everlookphotography.com | www.everlookphotography.wordpress.com | www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh
    Canon EOS 5dmk3 : 17-40 F4 L, 70-200F2.8 canon L, 24-70mm canon L, Gitzo Safari +1178 ballhead. |Canon 5dmkII, 16-35mmF2.8 II L, Gitzo 2541 )
    Singh Ray/Hitech/Lee assorted filters, Z pro modified system Cokin holder
    Post : Lightroom 3.6 catalogue -> Export as 16bit TIFF, Edited CS5 -> resized for web.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Aug 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I used to use the 10-22 which was a good lens. I also got the 17-40 when I had no crop body anymore. The lens is hsarp in the centre, I dont really know if the edges are that bad, but I dare say the higher quality prime lenses are going to be better.
    For my uses the 17-40 has done well enough. It is quite a cheap lens too, only $600 second hand, for a weather sealed L lens
    1DIII, 5DII, 15mm fish, 24mm ts-e, 35L,135L,200L,400L,mpe-65mm
    Film: eos 300, pentax 6x7

  11. #11
    Member KeeFy's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Mar 2011
    Location
    Newtown
    Posts
    470
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    +1 16-35.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    25 Sep 2010
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well I have the 16-35mm L lens and use it on my full frame camera. Never had one disappointing shot yet.
    I have a 7D body as well, but it seems to in the dehumidifying cabinet most of the times (shame on me) so I cannot advise you on a crop factor camera with this lens.
    Sometimes I feel like a thief - capturing and holding life for that instant.

  13. #13
    Member mistletoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31 May 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I went from a sigma 10 - 20 mm, very similar to the canon 10 - 22, on a crop to the 17 - 40 on a full frame ... and I've noticed a substantial difference in sharpness and colour reproduction. Im very happy with my new lens.

    Having said that, I'm pretty jealous of some of the photos taken on crops with the sigma by other people. Its how you use the lens that counts I suppose.

    When I'm choosing a new piece of equipment I tend to go to flickriver and select groups that use that equipment to see if I like the results.

    I can't really see a massive difference in quality between 16-35mm and 17-40mm. There are fantastic quality photos being taken with both.

    So, if you are in a position to afford either I wouldn't worry that much. You're in a win win situation.
    best regards

    Chris.

    flickr

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Sep 2010
    Location
    Syd
    Posts
    259
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've got the 10-22 and a 7D. I'm getting a 5D soon also, and plan on selling the 10-22, and buying the 17-40.
    The cost, weight and other disadvantages of the 16-35 overpowered it's advantages to me, however this is purely from my research and personal opinions and needs.
    Though this was not an easy decision as there were a lot of pros and cons, and it was probably the filter size issue that tipped the scales for me in favour of the 17-40.
    Having said that, i have not bought it yet so may still change my mind. A few concerning posts in this thread regarding 17-40 corner sharpness, so i'll do a little more research.
    Last edited by pmack; 18-03-2011 at 6:51pm.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pmack View Post
    ... A few concerning posts in this thread regarding 17-40 corner sharpness, so i'll do a little more research.
    You probably need to consider the way YOU intend to use the lens more than anything as this will really determine which qualities you need in a lens. I have lots of lenses that are not extremeley sharp in the corners and it doesn't matter to me at all, it can even be an advantage, however if you are shooting landscapes (or similar) then you might need corner to corner sharpness. But then again you should probably be looking at primes if that was the most important consideration.

    Decide what you need and how much you are willing to pay for it or how you are willing to compromise.

    JJ

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    27 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    650
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting thread and debate - how to adequately replace my 10-22 is certainly my biggest concern in weighing up a move to full frame...
    Richard
    Canon 5D4 | 11-24 f/4 L | 24-105 f/4 L| 100-400 L II | 85 f/1.2 L | 100 f/2.8 L macro | MP-E 65 f/2.8 macro | 1.4x | 580EX2 | MT-24 Twin Lite | Manfrotto | Photoshop CS5


  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Sep 2010
    Location
    Syd
    Posts
    259
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jjphoto View Post
    You probably need to consider the way YOU intend to use the lens more than anything as this will really determine which qualities you need in a lens. I have lots of lenses that are not extremeley sharp in the corners and it doesn't matter to me at all, it can even be an advantage, however if you are shooting landscapes (or similar) then you might need corner to corner sharpness. But then again you should probably be looking at primes if that was the most important consideration.

    Decide what you need and how much you are willing to pay for it or how you are willing to compromise.

    JJ
    true words, however I have heard a lot of people reccomend the 17-40 for landscapes.
    I compared the lenses here:
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=2
    the 16-35 definetely has an improvementt on corner sharpness when both lenses compared at f/4 (obviously the 16-35 is stopped down here), but the centers look comparable, with more mid range chromatic abberation on the 17-40.
    But with both lenses at f/8, there's not a whole lot it it IMO, and you are more likely to be shooting landscapes around there rather than wide open

  18. #18
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Nov 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've been doing some more research and came across this review luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml which showed some pros and cons for both lenses under different shooting situations. I'm still unsure atm but tending to lean towards the 17-40mm OR a 24-105mm L as a completely different slant.

    Still undecided!!

  19. #19
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I personally went for the 16-35/2.8L II.

    I wanted the extra width (the difference between 16mm and 17mm doesn't sound like much on paper, but it is noticeable in images, and even 16mm isn't wide enough sometimes).

    The brighter f/2.8 aperture also helps with AF, and can be used creatively in some situations.

    I have used this lens for a band shoot (in low and variable lighting), but I generally only use my fastest primes (34/1.4L, 85/1.2L II and 135/2L) for that type of shoot.

  20. #20
    Member KeeFy's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Mar 2011
    Location
    Newtown
    Posts
    470
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    whats that: Do note the 16-35 is the older gen mk1. Not 16-35 mk2. Which ever your choice is, you definitely will enjoy a new lens just like a little boy/girl at christmas. Keep that finger trigger happy mate.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •