17-40 v 16-35

mipevo6

mipevo6

Messages
2,624
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Having just invested in a 5D MK II, I am needing an UWA...

Any thoughts / comments on these 2 lenses?

How is the IQ from these 2 ?
 
The 17-40 is great, and I prefer the focal length, but it depends on whether you need f/2.8 or not.

You're talking about the 16-35II I take it?
 
DemiLion said:
The 17-40 is great, and I prefer the focal length, but it depends on whether you need f/2.8 or not.

You're talking about the 16-35II I take it?
Click to expand...

I have a 35 1.4 for the high speed...

Yes a II....

Anybody else tried both...?
 
Last edited:
I've not tried 16-35...

How important are the corners for you, and what aperture range do you plan using? Are 82mm filters a problem? Or the cost?

One bad thing about 17-40 is very soft corners at wide settings and wider apertures, and it's really best at f/8-11+. Both seem to sadly suffer from focus field distortions (i.e. the sides are focused much closer than the centre). But if you shoot at f/11 this is non-issue.
 
daugirdas said:
...One bad thing about 17-40 is very soft corners at wide settings and wider apertures...
Click to expand...

Not in my experience it isn't. It's more than acceptable for the tolerances you'd expect with the FL range.
 
DemiLion said:
Not in my experience it isn't. It's more than acceptable for the tolerances you'd expect with the FL range.
Click to expand...

Maybe our understanding of 'acceptable' is subtly different... photozone.de seems to agree with my view.
 
Good enough for publication and print is fine by me. Pixel peeping is a waste of time.
 
DemiLion said:
Good enough for publication and print is fine by me. Pixel peeping is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

That it does, but at A3 or A2 it would certainly show through in detailed landscape shots.
 
I've had both but for my use at this focal length (landscapes) the 17-40 is £ for £ a winner.

If you need this range @ f2.8 on a non EF-S option body the 16-35 is for you but If you're shooting 1.3 or FF landscapes at f11 or smaller on a tripod then it's hard to justify the 16-35 over the 17-40.
 
Last edited:
I have the 17-40 and love it. I pondered long and hard about the 16-35 and the faster lens but just couldn't justify it. Most of my work is studio based and I just don't need it enough.
 
daugirdas said:
Maybe our understanding of 'acceptable' is subtly different... photozone.de seems to agree with my view.
Click to expand...
Have to say that my experience with the 17-40L is that once you stop it down - even to F5.6 - it's a great lens. Whilst I haven't put a 16-35 on my 5D2, so have no direct comparison, my experience of the 17-40 matches those found on the full frame tests at slrgear here: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/31/cat/11

I have other lenses which seem to work in the way they have reviewed so I feel confident in their results. Looking at the 16-35II (here: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1082/cat/11), whilst it is definitely better than the 17-40 wide open, the 17-40 has it matched or beat for sharpness at narrower apertures (f5.6 onward) and across the focal range. Colour rendition/CA etc might be a different kettle of fish though). Of course, if you need f2.8/f4 then that part of the scale is irrelevant but I've been very happy with my 17-40 as a general purpose landscape lens as it tends to get used in good light at f8...
 
My 2p
I owned the 17-40mm f4 for about 5 years and its a nice lens but I was really never 100% happy with it My Brother bought the 16-35mm which was quite a bit sharper than my copy of the 17-40 and also the F2.8 is great if working indoors with it whereas the F4 was a Horse work
I actually sold my 17-40mm and bought the 24-70mm F2.8 so have an 'understanding' LOL with my brother who lets me use his 16-35mm pretty much whenever I want

and I love it far better than I ever liked my 17-40

one thing though on a full frame camera the 16-35mm vignettes quite a bit when shooting at 16mm
my 2p
 
Thanks for the replies folks....

Sounds like most folks think it needs heavily stopping down...

Hmmm what to do.....:thinking:

I guess I would mostly be using it for landscapes etc... but might be ok for an indoor lens....

hmmm :thinking:
 
mipevo6 said:
Thanks for the replies folks....

Sounds like most folks think it needs heavily stopping down...

Hmmm what to do.....:thinking:

I guess I would mostly be using it for landscapes etc... but might be ok for an indoor lens....

hmmm :thinking:
Click to expand...

Only if you need critical sharpness right to the corners. which is a tough call for any super-wide. Optically there's very little to choose between the 17-40L and 16-35L Mk2, apart from the f/2.8 bit.

Then there's the huge price difference, the weight, and 82mm filters.

Frankly I think you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart, but given the cost it's worth trying them both side by side.
 
Had both but kept the 16-35 ii worth it IMHO for the f2.8, better to have it and not need it much than need it and not have it :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top