Canon 17-40 or 16-35

biggreyhorse

biggreyhorse

Messages
253
Name
paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Any good feedback on the:

Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 L USM Lens or is it worth spending the extra on the
16-35mm f/2.8 L for the extra stop ??

To be used on eos5dII and back up 50d ;)
 
I was looking at these 2 lens, I went for the 17-40, I could not see a good reason to pay twice as much for the f2.8 lens when I would use it stopped down to f11 or f16 most of the time.
 
I guess the questions needs to be will you use the extra stop you pay the extra for?

Personally I would buy the 17-40 - the only reason I would suggest the 16-35 was if you were regularly shooting wide angles where the light was low and a reasonable shutter speed is required (Hondholding, shooting people without flash etc).
 
This has been asked a lot lately, I have had both and although I have the Mk1 16-35 the difference was enough to sell the 17-40, the problem I had with the 17-40 was converging verticals in certain instances, that said it is a very sharp lens, the extra stop is also handy with the 16-35.
 
scraggs said:
This has been asked a lot lately, I have had both and although I have the Mk1 16-35 the difference was enough to sell the 17-40, the problem I had with the 17-40 was converging verticals in certain instances, that said it is a very sharp lens, the extra stop is also handy with the 16-35.
Click to expand...

converging verticals - isn't that a problem with any lens used in certain circumstances - ie looking up at tall things?
 
jerry12953 said:
converging verticals - isn't that a problem with any lens used in certain circumstances - ie looking up at tall things?
Click to expand...

It was far worse with the 17-40 than the 16-35.
I had to take some shots of a church in essex and at the time I only had the 17-40 but some of them were completely unexceptable, that week I managed to get a s/h 16-35 and went back and got the same shots and the difference was increadible.
I wish now I had kept the shots from the 17-40 to show the difference.
 
I can't understand why this should be the case. If the 17-40 suffered from barrel distortion (which it does) to a greater degree than the 16-35 it would tend to compensate for the converging verticals.

It's just physics, isn't it?

It would be interesting to get some input from someone else here.....
 
17-40 doesn't look like a great lens from what I've seen, I know a few people with them. Especially for an L lens.

I'll be buying a 16-35 when I have the cash. Look at what all the Getty, AP, and other people use, 16-35 guaranteed. Of course it depends on your use, I look at things from a pj perspective, for example.
 
On a 5D MarkII it's probably best to go for the 16 35 Mark II if you have the money.

I have the 17 40. It's very sharp in the center, but gets rather soft in the corners on a 5D; I would expect this to be even more of a problem on a 5D MarkII.

It also has quite a bit of barrel distortion, but for landscapes that doesn't matter too much and can be corrected in Photoshop. As discussed above, it's probably more of a problem for architectural photography.

Having said that overall I'm still happy with my 17 40. It's the first L lens I've bought and I find I keep returning to use it despite its limitations.

Have a look here for a more in-depth review of the 16 35 MkII:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1635ii_a/c1635ii_a11.html

Interestingly, and contrary to my own expectations, the comparison on the digital picture yields very similar results for both lenses at 20mm and f/11 on a 1DsMkIII:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4
 
i have the 17-40 L and im satisfied with it although the aperture is not as good as on the 16 - 35
all depend of your usage, i always use a tripod for my landscapes which is 80% of my usage.
the ratio quality and price is very good
16 - 35 is a good lens but for my budget very high.

im fully satisfied with my 17 - 40
 
I've owned both the 17-40 & 16-35mkii.

The 17-40 is a good uwa for ff use, it doesn't make a great walkabout on a crop & is a bit soft at the long end. If landscapes are your primary aim it is a good choice. It is pretty sharp especially by f5.6

The 16-35 is superb - extra stop, really sharp from wide open and this gives options to use it very creatively. Colour rendition is stunning. I don't miss 35 and 24L's I used to own before I bought the 16-35

Phil
 
jerry12953 said:
I can't understand why this should be the case. If the 17-40 suffered from barrel distortion (which it does) to a greater degree than the 16-35 it would tend to compensate for the converging verticals.

It's just physics, isn't it?

It would be interesting to get some input from someone else here.....
Click to expand...

Converging verticals (exagerated perspective) is purely a function of close distance. You get it with all wide lenses. If anything it would be worse with the 16-35 because it allows you to get very slightly closer and still have the same field of view.

I think scraggs must be referring to barrel distortion, where straight lines curve outwards at the edges of the frame.

If the OP is using a crop format camera, the obvious choice is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS. It's at least as sharp as either 17-40 or 16-35, has more range, f/2.8, and IS.

On full frame, there's not a great deal to choose between the two unless you use f/2.8 a lot. Personally, I would save the cash and get the 17-40.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top