Canon 17-40 F4.0 vs Canon 16-35 F2.8 MKII

A

awhyu

Messages
1,922
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,
Recently acquired myself a 5D MKII for landscape purposes but I would be interested have any you folks owned the 17-40 and the 16-35 and noticed any perceived image quality differences between the two lenses.

Cheers,

Andrew
 
Hi Andrew

For landscape purposes I doubt you will see much difference between these lenses.

Obviously, there are focal length differences but I use the 16-35II a lot for gigs and
weddings where the extra stop is a real benefit so prefer this lens.

Doubt you will be unhappy with either for landscape use though.
 
Yeah thanks gary for that, I will still keep my 11-16 F2.8 on the crop 7D, that is a cracker of a lens in itself for APS-C purposes
 
Hi Andrew

Looking at your camera bag, I've had all of these lenses (sometimes multiple times) apart from the Tokina.

Might have to get one at some stage just to give it a go. Other friends of mine rate it VERY highly.

OOI, in the last couple of years I've sold the Canon 24-70L, Canon 70-200f2.8LII, Canon 100-400L out of your bag but kept the 16-35II it is THAT good and versatile. Basically, it is a GREAT walkabout on both crop and FF bodies which is why I like it so much.

Gary
 
awhyu said:
Hi,
Recently acquired myself a 5D MKII for landscape purposes but I would be interested have any you folks owned the 17-40 and the 16-35 and noticed any perceived image quality differences between the two lenses.

Cheers,

Andrew
Click to expand...
Not had a 16-35, but from the reviews I read I couldn't justify the extra over the 17-40. Here is a RAW->JPEG via Lightroom (so has had the usual 25 sharpening applied at import and "default" output sharpening. At 17mm, f8. It has also had the exposure boosted (not sure why it needed it but...) and no further processing. Not a great subject, but lots of detail going on.

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/_8457.jpg
 
PS. That was taken in 30 deg C heat. Don't be too worried the things further away (a good few miles) aren't 100% sharp ;)
 
thanks, they look great and sharp

andy
 
Hi Andy,
Can you show me what is it like at 17mm @ f11 and 40mm @ f11

Cheers,

andy
 
Looking at your bag Andrew, and not knowing what it is you do, if it was my outfit on a 7D, I'd get a 17-55 2.8 and sell both the 24-70L and 24-105L. Personally, I wouldn'y keep the macro either and just put tubes on the 70-200L depending how into macro you are. I'd also get a 2x extender and sell the 100-400L.

Or maybe think about full frame, which throws up a few other options ;)
 
Oh no, I am keeping the 7D for birding, nature and other fast action, I have bought the 5D MKII for my landscapes, so I am planning on having two bodies :)
 
awhyu said:
Oh no, I am keeping the 7D for birding, nature and other fast action, I have bought the 5D MKII for my landscapes, so I am planning on having two bodies :)
Click to expand...

Okay, well I guess that makes more sense and I'm having much the same thoughts myself. In which case, the 7D would be almost exclusively for long lens stuff, so the 11-16 would go. That would be covered by the 17-40L on full frame.

TBH I don't think there's much to choose between that and the 16-35L, apart from the 16-35L being about double everything - twice the aperture, twice the weight and cost. Takes huge 82mm filters though, which might be a consideration.
 
Yeah, but in no hurry to get rid of it, it may come useful for low light stuff on the apsc
 
awhyu said:
Hi Andy,
Can you show me what is it like at 17mm @ f11 and 40mm @ f11

Cheers,

andy
Click to expand...
Crikey, not many at that setting. You'll have to make do with these at a focal distance of 3-4m here at 17mm: http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/_9068.jpg

and I have precisely 4 pictures at 40mm f11 of which you can have 2.

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/_9072.jpg

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/_9047.jpg

These were taken in Death Valley and temperature was 49.5 deg C (yes, 49.5 Centigrade) so don't judge the hills in the distance for sharpness....
 
PS. The foreground in these will be out of focus due to how close it is (less than 40cm at a guess). All unprocessed and direct from camera via LR import & export and complete with dust bunnies...
 
Looks good to me, the corners look acceptable too.

Question to the crowd has anyone had a 17-40 but went to a 16-35 for landscape purposes and noticed a difference
 
awhyu said:
Looks good to me, the corners look acceptable too.
Click to expand...
Have to say I'm very happy with the 17-40L.... Given the price, I think the performance is excellent. I also have a Sigma 12-24 which gets used when 17mm isn't wide enough, but in comparison it isn't as sharp and colours don't pop quite as much straight from camera. I bought the 17-40 as I wasn't 100% happy with the 12-24 and was thinking of selling the 17-40 on if it disappointed. It stayed and complements the crazy wide angles you get from 12mm on a FF camera...
 
arad85 said:
Crikey, not many at that setting. You'll have to make do with these at a focal distance of 3-4m here at 17mm: http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/_9068.jpg

and I have precisely 4 pictures at 40mm f11 of which you can have 2.

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/_9072.jpg

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/_9047.jpg

These were taken in Death Valley and temperature was 49.5 deg C (yes, 49.5 Centigrade) so don't judge the hills in the distance for sharpness....
Click to expand...

That lake looks a bit blown out to me :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top