Canon 16-35 L MKII or 17-40 L?

R

RSMarco

Messages
1,294
Edit My Images
Yes
I want a WA for my 5D MKIII and can't decide which one to go with. It's mainly for landscapes and architecture but will also use it for cars and shots in the house etc.

With the MKIII having good high iso capabilities I'm wondering if this would kind of help with the 1stop advantage of the 16-35?

What about sharpness etc?

Thanks for any help.

Mark
 
I've used the 17-40mm for some time and have only just swapped it for the 16-35mm.

Why?
  • Because for me the 2.8 aperture gives me more creative control over the depth of field.
  • I found I was using the wide end mostly on the 17-40 and wanted even MORE wa. :cool:
  • I could afford to. :)


You have to ask yourself, is the 16-35mm worth twice the cost over the 17-40, especially when there are some good second hand examples around for about £400 so you can save even more? TBH, for the price the 17-40 is a great lens, at a good price, with great build, adequate to pretty good sharpness and ca, much of which can be improved with the right software anyway :thumbs: . I can safely say it wasn't the quality of the 17-40 that was holding my work back. ;)

If you are really bothered about sharpness, then there are plenty of better lenses that might suit your need for landscapes and architecture. The Canon 17mm or 24mm tilt shift lenses for example. If you have the cash that is. :)
 
I always preffered the 16-35 mk2 over the 17-40.The images just seemed to have a nicer look to them.
The 16-35 is a very nice walk about lens but to be honest neither lens is what you would call awesome.I much prefer my 17 TS&E and consider selling my 16-35 on a regular basis and picking up another Zeiss 21mm.

Gary
 
Cheers guys!

I think the decision between these two is difficult considering the price difference.
 
16-35's 82mm filter size would irritate me...
 
Lol
 
I have the 17-40 and the only time I have felt that the 16-35 would have been better is shooting indoor snowboarding, for automotive and landscapes I normally use a tripod and use the lens stopped down anyway.
 
I have the 17-40mm and the 24-70mm but I think I would like the 24mm prime if im being honest :)
 
The 16-35 is more flexible. I use mine a lot at f2.8 indoors shooting family and kids to blur distracting backgrounds. You also get better AF performance from a f2.8 lens if you ever shoot something moving. And occasionally when it's really quite dark, that extra stop of ISO means better IQ and less time removing noise in post.

Sure, the 17-40 is easily better bang-for-buck in certain applications, but you've gone and bought one of the most versatile and flexible cameras on the market, so I think it makes a lot of sense to pair it with some fast L zooms to maximise it's potential. That way you have an awesome camera-lens combo for many different types of photography, and for many different situations that you might find yourself in. Case in point, within your preferred realm of landscapes, if you ever wanted to shoot night shots or star trails, you might just wish you had f2.8.

Ultimately, you pay a lot for flexibility, and only you can decide if it's worth it.
 
Cheers guy's.

Just received a 16-35 so will give it a blast.

Tilt shifts are a bit out of budget at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top