Canon 17-40 /4 L vs 16-35 /2.8 L

[jamesward93]

I am pondering on getting a wide angle lens and cant really decide between the 2. Has anyone used either or both of these lenses? Is the 16-35 really worth the extra £600 or so quid?

Any thoughts?

[grumpybadger]

As I posted on another thread last week. I tried both in store about 3 years ago and walked out with the 17-40 as it was sharper corner to corner

Doesn't mean they are all like that but I tested the one I actually bought.

[RichardtheSane]

I had a 17-40L as my first wide angle.

It was a stunning lens, very sharp even wide open and a joy to use.

[scraggs]

I have both and in my opinion it certainly is worth the extra for the 16-35, far less distortion and the extra stop is obviously usefull.
The 17-40 never gets used since getting the 16-35, and in fact is going in the for sale forum in the next few days.

[markelliot]

I have both and in my opinion it certainly is worth the extra for the 16-35, far less distortion and the extra stop is obviously usefull.
The 17-40 never gets used since getting the 16-35, and in fact is going in the for sale forum in the next few days.

How much for??? I'd be interested if the price is right??? From what I have heard the 17-40 is a cracking lens...

I guess it depends how you define cracking and what your level of photography is!

[blue max]

It's double the price, but both are extremely good. The differences are pretty transparent - range and speed. The shorter range has less of a job to do and can reduce the distortion.

If you can afford both, get the 16-35 and you won't be disappointed. If you can only stretch to the 17-40, equally you won't be disappointed.

Graham

[Jayst84]

It is to me. I don't have much experience with either, but I'm aiming to own a 16-35 in the middle-future.

Can't shoot at f2.8 on the 17-40, and f4 p***** me off.

To an extent (as always) depends how you shoot I guess.

[Merovingian]

I am pondering on getting a wide angle lens and cant really decide between the 2. Has anyone used either or both of these lenses? Is the 16-35 really worth the extra £600 or so quid?
Any thoughts?
I suspect 17-40 owners will say no, and 16-35 owners will say yes. In reality the view worth its weight is the member who's owned both!

[jamesward93]

thanks for the responses. I think i might go and try them both out at a store this weekend. My gut feeling was the 16-35, but will have to wait a bit longer for that one! :(

[OneTen]

There's a revies at Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) that compares both. I don't know how useful this is though.

[malla1962]

Ive had both and found no problems with either of them, if you afe going to need 2.8 then go for the 16-35 if not go for the 17-40, IQ wise theres nothing really in it.

[AliB]

I just bought the 17-40mm f4.

I did try the 16-35mm too.

So why did I buy the f4? well two reasons. Firstly what use am I going to put it to. First dance at weddings which is lit by off camera flash and shot at f8............OK so I don't need f2.8 for that.....check.

Secondly landscapes for personal use and architectural shots which I will need to take the distortion out of anyway. So...........I don't need f2.8 for those either, more like f11 really!

Having established that this one will spend most of it's life at f8-f11 I plumped to save the extra the 16-35mm would have cost.

I've only had it just over a week and I got up at 5am last weekend to test it and I have to say I'm not disappointed. :) Distortion is what you would expect from a wide angle but the CA is great. i.e. none! No flare, no problems at all. :)

[Kryptix]

Tried both on the 50D and preferred the 16-35L but as it's a crop sensor probably not an opinion you value. I got the 17-40L as my friend was selling it for a decent price but that is also going up for sale soon as I barely use it since getting the 10-22.

[sheddy]

why not the EFS 2.8 jobby at around £800?

[malla1962]

why not the EFS 2.8 jobby at around £800?Not a lot of use on a mk3:D