Canon EF 17-40mm V Canon EF 16-35mm

RD400

RD400

Messages
693
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
I`am after some input from people who have up graded from
the canon 17-40 to 16-35 mk2 lens
Have you seen a great difference in the sharpness between the 2 lenses
As I have the 17-40 lens which I find a wonderful lens but was thinking of getting the 16-35 but is it worth the extra cost if there is`nt a great improvement over the 17-40.
Any info would be great
 
I've owned a few 17-40 lenses over the years but I borrowed a 16-35 mk2 for a couple of weeks.

I appreciate the f2.8 of the 16-35 has obvious advantages beyond landscape photography but suming up - I only use the 17-40 for landscapes and don't even go near f4.

My findings - If it's a landscape work - I wouldn't bother unless you've money burning a hole in your pocket.
 
I'm a semi professional landscape photographer who used the 17-40 for 5 years before upgrading to the 16-35. I have owned 2 copies of each lens. There is no sharpness difference. However the 16-35 does have better micro contrast shooting into the light and the sunstars are nicer. The main reason to make the change though would be to have f2.8. Otherwise save your money!
 
Save your money, I had 2 of the 16mm which were mainly used for the inside of the church but you're not going to get much detail at F/2.8, the times that it did work were when I used it for wide portraits but at 2.8 this was still tricky. It's a very sharp lens and quick but very expensive considering the 17-40 goes for £385 on here :)
You might also be interested in the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 which is a gem of a lens, IQ is spot on with good colour and the lens itself is metal in construction so it feels very sturdy etc and these are around £360 - £399 new :)
 
daugirdas said:
Both perform about the same but one costs 2-3x more
Click to expand...

dinners said:
If it's a landscape work - I wouldn't bother unless you've money burning a hole in your pocket.
Click to expand...

alexnail said:
There is no sharpness difference. However the 16-35 does have better micro contrast shooting into the light and the sunstars are nicer. The main reason to make the change though would be to have f2.8. Otherwise save your money!
Click to expand...

Flightphoto said:
Save your money
Click to expand...

I haven't used the two lenses extensively myself, but my customers have, and this is the consensus I get from them. The main reason for getting the 16-35 is if you want/need to shoot at f/2.8.
 
Last edited:
IMO (having owned both)...and used for wedding photography (mainly) and landscapes (rarely)

The 17-40 was OK at f4 in the centre, but anything else was pretty bad. Loads of CA and soft. By f8 the problem had mostly gone, but still loads of CA. By F11 it was sharp all over.

The 16-35 is sharp at 2.8 and pin sharp by f3.5, I have yet to notice any CA. For that reason I only ever shoot it at 2.8 for weddings, no need to go higher - 2.8 is more than sharp enough.

For landscapes... I would 100% say go with the 17-40 and spend the extra £ on LEE filters...

Although saying that, I recently went on a trip to Berlin and took only my 5DIII and 16-35II, using it as a multi-purpose lens which photographed the entire trip, having 2.8 as an option was invaluable... so for me Id always go with the fastest you can afford! Jokingly I always used to call the 17-40 an "f8 and up lens" - which looking bad, probably wasnt far from the truth!

Here's a sample from my 16-35 II at 35mm f2.8 wide open

 
Last edited:
I have the 16-24 mark II for its f/2.8 capability and I find the sharpness underwhelming compared to the more recent mark II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 Canon zooms. However, right now the only alternative for a fast and wide requirement is a prime lens. If f/4 is sufficient you would find the 17-40 better value for money.
 
Thanks guys for the replies found then interesting I use the 17-40 for landscapes normally at F8 or above and I'am happy with results it gives me but you hear and read all the hype about the lastest gear it's good to be able to ask a question and get the info you want and it's come from people who have a genuine interest in the subject and are not sale's men trying to sell you something in the long run you do'nt need.
So I may save my penny's and spend it on something that I really might need and use instead of a impulse buy (how many time have we all done that and later you wish you'd not brought it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top