Anyone compared the Canon 17-40L f/4 and the Canon 17-35 f/2.8?

Eisbar

Eisbar

Messages
257
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
I've found myself in a couple of situations recently when I wish had f/2.8 on my WA lens. I just wondered if anyone had compared the image quality of the 17-40L (which I am very happy with IQ wise) with the older 17-35L.

The reason I'm considering the 17-35 is that to trade it for my 17-40L would be a no cost option, I don't want to trade IQ for the occasional f/2.8 use though.

I can't afford the 16-35 II, but if the 16-35 Mk I would be significantly better I might consider it but the reviews I have read are mixed.

Comments welcome please
 
There's a very good comparative review here http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml although a google search throws up many others on the net.

I don't think there's much in it in terms of IQ - there are subtle differences. So it just comes down to aperture and price.


Eisbar said:
I've found myself in a couple of situations recently when I wish had f/2.8 on my WA lens. I just wondered if anyone had compared the image quality of the 17-40L (which I am very happy with IQ wise) with the older 17-35L.

The reason I'm considering the 17-35 is that to trade it for my 17-40L would be a no cost option, I don't want to trade IQ for the occasional f/2.8 use though.

I can't afford the 16-35 II, but if the 16-35 Mk I would be significantly better I might consider it but the reviews I have read are mixed.

Comments welcome please
Click to expand...
 
snowy said:
There's a very good comparative review here http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml although a google search throws up many others on the net.

I don't think there's much in it in terms of IQ - there are subtle differences. So it just comes down to aperture and price.
Click to expand...

Oh, and weight if that's important to you...
(sorry for replying to myself!)
I plumped for the 17-40 as I prefer a lighter lens and a heavier wallet :D
 
I can't offer a comparison but I do have a 17-35L. Generally it gets the job done although I don't use it very often. It's a bit slushy around the edges on a full frame body when wide open at 17mm but this isn't an issue on a crop body.....stopping down to f/4 clears it up. My only other criticism is a tendency to flare if there's a strong light source in the view...ie, street lights at night.
It can't quite compete with the 16-35II but betters the MkI in some aspects (based on reviews from others)

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I can't offer a comparison but I do have a 17-35L. Generally it gets the job done although I don't use it very often. It's a bit slushy around the edges on a full frame body when wide open at 17mm but this isn't an issue on a crop body.....stopping down to f/4 clears it up. My only other criticism is a tendency to flare if there's a strong light source in the view...ie, street lights at night.
It can't quite compete with the 16-35II but betters the MkI in some aspects (based on reviews from others)

Bob
Click to expand...

Cheers, Bob.

Anyone used both the 17-40L and the 17-35L?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top