Canon 17-40 v Canon 16-35 F4

Messages
25
Name
SIMON
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have the 17-40 on my 6D but am considering selling this and buying the 16-35 F4

I know the 16-35 has IS which is a bonus, but apart from this is there any real difference in picture quality between the two lenses to justify the extra outlay

Thanks Simon
 
Ken Rockwell says this, but many think he is a little loopy but he has tried all the best lenses and tested them to some degree...

The 16-35mm f/4 L IS is Canon's best ultrawide lens for nature, landscape, interior, real estate, general architecture and outdoor photography because there is no sharper Canon ultrawide, and it's the only Canon ultrawide with Image Stabilization (IS) so you can leave your tripod at home. It's also the lightest and least expensive of Canon's three sharpest ultrawides. The only other Canon ultrawides as good optically as this IS lens are the exotic 11-24mm and the new 16-35mm f/2.8 III — but neither has stabilization, and each is bigger and costs over twice as much!

While Canon's 17-40mm f/4 L and 16-35mm f/2.8 L II were the standards of the professional nature and landscape photography for years, they weren't very sharp in the corners — especially at large apertures. We always had to shoot them at f/11 for the best corner results. Many landscape professionals adapted the Nikon 14-24mm and Nikon 16-35mm lenses to their Canon cameras, or hauled the huge manual focus Zeiss lenses instead. This new lens ends all that; it's sharp down to the pixels even in the corners
 
IS is the real difference plus an extra 1mm on the wide end... Some say the 17-40 is less sharp than the 16-35 particularly in the corners, however I don't have any problems with my 17-40, I do stop down though and don't shoot everything wide open which is where any differences will manifest themselves.

The 16-35 is obviously a more modern design so if that, IS and a tad wider are important then go for it...
 
Back
Top