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

[Captured frame]

Have used the 17-40L for quite a while now on 5D ,5DII and 1DIIn - has performed very well ,I have not had much of a problem with edge sharpness/softness ,maybe I have an extra sharp one,have used the 16-35L II and it is a very good lens,if I needed 2.8 I might change but I don`t so I coulld not see enough of a difference to make me change.The 17-40L is a very fine lens for landscapes.

[selaw]

I will have a 17-40L f4 heading my way soon. I have read a lot more good reports than bad. Plan to use mostly to replace the 18-55 kit lens. Being EF is also handy for the 1D and will enable me to make better use of the 'brick' body. Having said all that if I could honestly afford the 16-35L f2.8 I wouldn't hesitate in buying it. Just a matter of getting what I believe is the best I can afford at the moment. As I hope to mainly use it as a landscape lens, I don't think I will miss the faster f-stop. Topped off with the 1D's documented low light ISO excellence, should add further value to the 17-40L f4.

Really looking forward to playing with it on both the 1D & 350D and posting results for comparison

[Arg]

....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 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!

While the 17-40L is a definite improvement over the 10-20, ....

Must be a few 10-22's in members' hands that are out of alignment, because generically it is absolutely as good as the ultrawide L's optically. In fact it is sharper wide open on an APS-C camera than both the L's on full frame cameras.

The 17-40 is actually a bit sharper than the 16-35, but they are all very good lenses. Get whichever one suits your budget, and for critical applications stop them down a stop or so and you will not lose quality against that mighty 10-22 of yours.

[pmack]

Must be a few 10-22's in members' hands that are out of alignment, because generically it is absolutely as good as the ultrawide L's optically. In fact it is sharper wide open on an APS-C camera than both the L's on full frame cameras.

I'd say it's more likely the placebo sort of effect that an 'L' lens with a red ring can create.
But if the posters have images to show their observations, i'd be interested.

[AdamR]

The 16-35 kills the 17-40 at f2.8..... And probably at f4 too. But who often uses a wide at either aperture. I use the 17-40 and when I purchased it I had the money to go either way and no hesitation not to spend. I chose the 17-40 because it fulfils my needs. At f8 it is tack sharp. Lots of people whinge and whine about lack of sharpness in wides and most often its people who dont use them or dont know how to use them. I use the 180L a lot and so have a very good comparison of what an ideal sharp lens should be and the 17-40 when I use it works great. As to whether its better than your lens. Not sure I had both but at the time of owning the 10-22mm I was one of the people who thought they knew how to use it but didnt. My brother gets great shots. I immediately notice colour rendition upon the change though and I know the 1ds meters and replicates colours beautifully which may pursuay my thoughts but to anyone who can use a wide there is nothing wrong with the 17-40. Just read magazines and look at what lens took what shots, youll find time and again 17-40 pops up way more often. Just like the 100-400 makes way more entries into photo comps than either comparable prime that people on these websites will tell you is way better.

[whatsthatbeeping]

Bit the bullet and purchased a used 17-40 on eBay this week for $670. so either way I think I'll be happy for the moment.
Hopefully the lens will turn up before I sell my 50D + 10-22mm kit so that I can do some side by side blind test shots for future reference when anyone's thinking of the same move to full frame.
If anyone is in brissy and has the 16-35 mII it would be interesting to do a comparison shoot out with the same subject matter to have a definitive test for comparison of all 3 lenses,

I'll keep you posted!

[JM Tran]

Must be a few 10-22's in members' hands that are out of alignment, because generically it is absolutely as good as the ultrawide L's optically. In fact it is sharper wide open on an APS-C camera than both the L's on full frame cameras.

The 17-40 is actually a bit sharper than the 16-35, but they are all very good lenses. Get whichever one suits your budget, and for critical applications stop them down a stop or so and you will not lose quality against that mighty 10-22 of yours.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...0_4_5d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff..._28_5d?start=1

[Digiphilic]

My 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is here from B+H Video! horay (I can't believe I ordered it on Sat night and it was here this morning but I wasn't home so it will be delivered tomorrow).
I was very happy with my 17-40mm on my 7D but it didn't quite give me the same sharpness with my 5D MkII...may be it's my aging eyes. I am not claiming I am a pro but I can tell the difference, plus I need a wider open lens for low light shoot hence the need for upgrade to 16-35mm f/2.8.
I'm also very happy to know my 17-40mm will be heading to a fellow forum member, it'a always nice to know something you had going to a good home.

[pmack]

My 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is here from B+H Video! horay (I can't believe I ordered it on Sat night and it was here this morning but I wasn't home so it will be delivered tomorrow).
I was very happy with my 17-40mm on my 7D but it didn't quite give me the same sharpness with my 5D MkII...may be it's my aging eyes. I am not claiming I am a pro but I can tell the difference,

That's not surprising, a 100% pixel comparison would only be equal if the 5D's resolution was maybe 50MP (at a guess, maybe even more). Remember the 7D is only using a part of the lens, so one pixel from the 7D see's a lot less glass than a pixel from the 5D

[KeeFy]

I think if based on pixel density it'll be about 47.5 Mpix based on a mental quick estimate.

[pmack]

I think if based on pixel density it'll be about 47.5 Mpix based on a mental quick estimate.

haha, was that a joke "mental quick estimate"?
The 7D sensor is 22.2x14.8mm=328.56mm^2
Pixels per mm^2=18million/328.56=54784
FF sensor is 36x24=864mm^2
Same pixel density on fullframe gives 864*54784=47.3MP
Did you round up to the nearest 0.5 in your head?

[KeeFy]

I meant 46.5.

Quick mental. Crop 1.6 * 1.6 roughly 2.6
2.6 * 18 mpix = 36 + 6 + 4.8 = 46.8 mpix which is about 46.5

There you go. 46.5 Mpix. Looks like you did the math and i'm about .5 off the real answer.

[Xenedis]

The 16-35 kills the 17-40 at f2.8...

Given the fact that 17-40 cannot open up to f/2.8, the 16-35 would always win. No competition. :-)

[pmack]

Looks like you did the math and i'm about .5 off the real answer.

yeah i know that's why i was impressed if you did that in your head.
I can't do anything without a calculator these days.
Interesting way you did it, hardest part for me was finding the size of the canon aps-c sensor as i got different numbers wherever i looked.
DIdn't think of diving the lenghts by 1.6
Though interestly if you do that, you the sensor should be 22.5x15.
Which made me realise, the crop factor is actually 1.621621621*
Well there you go i learnt something today.

[Nige]

Just my .2c. I have the 16-35mm and it is fantastic. I don't think the 17-40mm is too bad either. I have shot with both and it depends on what your going to shoot for. For lanscape with both at f11 I dont think it will make a huge difference. But if your planning on shooting in low light the f2.8 may make a difference.

Cheers
-Nigel

[chrisprendergast]

+1 for 16-35 II

[KeeFy]

Engineer + Asian?

I like numbers, but no way i'd be able to crunch it the way you did mentally.

But I definitely did it slower than punching through a calculator
So maybe it should be said slow mental sum. LoL.

[pmack]

haha, no just engineer, i take it you're both.

Given the fact that 17-40 cannot open up to f/2.8, the 16-35 would always win. No competition. :-)

that's what i thought, but i think they meant the 16-35 @ f/2.8 is better than the 17-40 @ f/4

[spasmoid]

I own the 16-35L MkII and I am extremely pleased with it. It was my first L lens and only my second decent lens (after the 50mm f/1.8).
All I know is, my mate has the 17-40 and every time we shoot together, he wants to borrow my 16-35.

I will say this, I shoot weddings in a variety of lighting conditions, and faster lenses means more reliable and more responsive autofocus. I often shoot wide open at f/2.8 if I want to blue the background. You can get fairly good results considering it is wide angle. The next lens I want to get is the 24mm f/1.4 for it's huge aperture. I can only imagine this lens will focus even better under low-lighting conditions plus I will be able to get some dreamy wide-angle shots.

Congrats on having a full frame camera, although I do not know why that would scare you. The only full-frame I could afford is an EOS 3, and it loves my 16-35.

[iwkyb]

16-35 if you have the cash, 17-40 if you want light weight. Sharpness is actually quite close (unless pixel peeper - then 16-35 is slightly better at the edges).

Above advantage doesn't apply for me since I am using cropped sensor - craving for full frame to make use of my 16-35 to its original purpose.