Canon 17-40 F4 vs 16-35 F2.8, worth the extra?

J

James J

Messages
1,794
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
I've branching out into wide angle and landscape photography, yet can't decide which lens I should stump up the cash to buy. I shoot with a canon 5D mk ii and don't have anything under a 50mm lens in focal length, so whatever I buy will give me new options in terms of shooting.

Would I gain anything major from stumping up the cash for the F2.8 slightly wider lens or am I just best off sticking to the F4, which isn't exactly bad.

I had a read earlier and both are really nicely regarded lenses so either way it won't be a bad choice, just need a little direction!

Also, how good are these lenses at relatively close ranges? I take TONNES of flower photos and one thing I can't do is get a nice wide shot of a large patch of flowers unless I stand very far back, where everything is then tiny, unless I use one of my zooms, which defeats the point in the first place due to the narrow field of view.
 
No idea on the flower photos, but as far as I can tell (i.e. reviews) there is very littledifference between the 16- and 17- in day to day use. Yes, the 16- has 1mm extra and a full stop extra light, but that's it.......
 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Although not as fast as the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L lens, the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is a comparable lens in terms of image quality. The biggest difference between the 17-40 and the similar-focal-length-covering 16-35 L is price. The 17-40 is much less expensive - practically half the price. But of course, the 16-35 is able to let in twice as much light. See the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Review for a comparison to the newer 16-35 L Lens version.
Click to expand...


In brief - If you are going to shoot primarily with narrow apertures or your budget is restricted, the decision is easy - get the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens. If you need to shoot in low light conditions such as indoors without a flash or tripod, then the 16-35 L II is a better choice (you need at least f/2.8 - or image stabilization for motionless subjects).
Click to expand...
 
I am not quite sure what you mean by flower photos - macro or a few flowers in the foreground of a landscape shot? The latter will be good subject for a wide lens, the former will need something like 100mm macro.

17-40 is just acceptable after f/11 on the sides. 16-35mm should be an obvious improvement on this part, and it has less distortion but is a lot more expensive. I am certainly upgrading as soon as I can. Zeiss 21mm is the one you want for ultimate resolution.
 
daugirdas said:
17-40 is just acceptable after f/11 on the sides. 16-35mm should be an obvious improvement on this part, and it has less distortion but is a lot more expensive. I am certainly upgrading as soon as I can. Zeiss 21mm is the one you want for ultimate resolution.
Click to expand...
I have to say your definition of "just acceptable" and mine differ. I'm happy with mine even at f4 - it does what it does very well but then I expect a lens covering both a zoom range and wide angle to have some compromises.

From what I have seen from all online reviews and images, the 16-35 is just as good/just as bad - depending on your point of view - to the 17-40 at the edges. I would also expect a yet more expensive prime lens to be better than either the 17- or 16-. Whilst it might be brilliant at 21mm, it doesn't do the 16/17-20.9mm or 21.1-35/40mm range nearly as well though ;)
 
I'm in the same position with regard to choosing one of these lenses, and have settled on the 17-40. The 16-35 doesn't give me enough extra above what the 17-40 can offer to justify the massive difference in price.
 
arad85 said:
I have to say your definition of "just acceptable" and mine differ. I'm happy with mine even at f4 - it does what it does very well but then I expect a lens covering both a zoom range and wide angle to have some compromises.

From what I have seen from all online reviews and images, the 16-35 is just as good/just as bad - depending on your point of view - to the 17-40 at the edges. I would also expect a yet more expensive prime lens to be better than either the 17- or 16-. Whilst it might be brilliant at 21mm, it doesn't do the 16/17-20.9mm or 21.1-35/40mm range nearly as well though ;)
Click to expand...

Shall we say it would be nice that wideangle performed as well as Canon 24-70mm mkI, that is getting used instead where possible.

BTW Canon is a bit overdue to release an improved wide lens. Both standard and tele have excellent II incarnations, even if one is just entering the market.
 
I owned both when shooting Canon and the 17-40 was a much better lens, edges were like mushy peas on the 16-35 wide open no no point in it being an f/2.8 lens as it really wasnt useable, the 17-40 along with the 24-105mm f/4 and 70-200 L NON IS were my Canon holy trinity.
 
Gary Coyle said:
the 16-35 wide open no no point in it being an f/2.8 lens as it really wasnt useable
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's just not true. I own the 16-35 and chose it specifically over the 17-40. Since I had kids I shoot a lot of fast moving indoor (read dim light) portraits often in fairly small rooms. I need the flexibilty of a wide angle zoom and f2.8. The extra stop is extremely useful in avoiding high ISOs or getting higher SS to stop motion, and it also blurs away distracting background much better, making a big difference IMO. I don't care how sharp the extreme corners are at f2.8 because I never place my subjects there, and it's certainly sharp in the center where it counts.

The main purpose of this lens is the fact it's a zoom with constant F2.8, for those who need that. It's an extremely versitile lens and that's why it costs so much.

If your primary purpose is landscapes then I'd definitely look elsewhere, avoid the 17-40 as well, a pick up a wide prime that is tack sharp in the corners wide open - there are quite a few to chose from, especially if you're happy with 3rd party manufacturers and/or manual focus lenses. If you want something more general purpose, both the 17-40 and 16-35 are good options, but only you can decide if the extra stop is worth the extra money. For me it is.
 
For those arguing about the 16-35, are you talking about the mk I or mk II version?
 
Hey, you got a good 16-35mm, i got a good 17-40mm.

I dont doubt both do a good job.

Xenon54 said:
Sorry, but that's just not true. I own the 16-35 and chose it specifically over the 17-40. Since I had kids I shoot a lot of fast moving indoor (read dim light) portraits often in fairly small rooms. I need the flexibilty of a wide angle zoom and f2.8. The extra stop is extremely useful in avoiding high ISOs or getting higher SS to stop motion, and it also blurs away distracting background much better, making a big difference IMO. I don't care how sharp the extreme corners are at f2.8 because I never place my subjects there, and it's certainly sharp in the center where it counts.

The main purpose of this lens is the fact it's a zoom with constant F2.8, for those who need that. It's an extremely versitile lens and that's why it costs so much.

If your primary purpose is landscapes then I'd definitely look elsewhere, avoid the 17-40 as well, a pick up a wide prime that is tack sharp in the corners wide open - there are quite a few to chose from, especially if you're happy with 3rd party manufacturers and/or manual focus lenses. If you want something more general purpose, both the 17-40 and 16-35 are good options, but only you can decide if the extra stop is worth the extra money. For me it is.
Click to expand...
 
Scarecrow said:
I'm in the same position with regard to choosing one of these lenses, and have settled on the 17-40. The 16-35 doesn't give me enough extra above what the 17-40 can offer to justify the massive difference in price.
Click to expand...

Well I started with the 17-40 and loved it and lured by all the blather upgraded to the 16-35 really for the extra stop for lower light shots. That was on a 5DMk1 and then I upgraded that to a 5DmkII.

My advice would be this: 1. try both before you buy if you possibly can, 2. don't forget how far you can usefully crank up the ISO on your 5DII: it's just possible that this might match or even outweigh the extra stop offerred by the 16-35, 3. there are many fee-earning togs who still swear by the 17-40 in preference to the 16-35. Indeed there may be at least one responding to your thread. Ask yourself why this might be so and lastly, 4. decide how important the extra stop might be to you in reality and how often you're going to grab the extra stop in preference to cranking up the ISO (you can do both, of course).

Then be honest with yourself and face up to whether you're a kit monster who just has to have "that-slightly-better-than-the-other-item".

And if you're still unsure start with the 17-40: it's a super lens, you'll learn a lot with it, there's a ready market for good used examples and you can always trade up if the beans are still burning a hole in your pocket. (I know the feeling myself and am doing my best to suppress an urge related to 70-200 L lenses in 2.8!)
 
17-40L is a great lens. You have to need f/2.8 quite badly to go for the 16-35L. And note that there is a big IQ difference between the 16-35 Mk1 and Mk2!

Not quite sure what the OP means by shooting flowers, but if it's close focus you want, all super-wides go really close. 17-40L goes down to under 1ft, which is like four inches from the front element.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Hey, you got a good 16-35mm, i got a good 17-40mm.

I dont doubt both do a good job.
Click to expand...

Gary, I re-read my original reply, and perhaps I was a tad strong in my response. I guess I was trying to get across that the point of the lens being f2.8 is for types of photography where corner sharpness at f2.8 is not of great concern (if any). The only use I can think of where I'd worry about this (apart from test shots of brick walls) is for nightscapes and star trails, where I'd want very good sharpness right into the corners, but might well use the lens wide open to let more light in (with focus at infinity).

arad85 said:
For those arguing about the 16-35, are you talking about the mk I or mk II version?
Click to expand...

I own, and have been talking about the mkII.

Scarecrow said:
So what's the point of using a wide angle lens if you're not worried about the corners?
Click to expand...

Low-light / indoors environmental portraiture. Often I like to add context to my photos by including the surroundings in the composition. In smaller rooms (where there's no space to back up) and I'm fairly close to the subject, I use a wide-angle to achieve this. Often I'm shooting f2.8-f4 due to dim lighting and to isolate the subject a bit, all of which means the corners are well in the background of the room, and therefore well out-of-focus, meaning sharpness is relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top