16 - 35 2.8 or 17-40 4.0

<p>I am having a dilemna when trying to decide on one of these two lenses. The extra light on the 16-35 2.8 would be nice, but the 16mm end doesnt seem that much wider than than the 17-40. I am using a 5d mk 2 body. im wondering with the price difference is there a difference in image quality? Why would i buy the 16-35 over the 17-40, (besides the aperture difference)?<br>

Thank you!</p>

<p>Because in nearly everything, the 16-35 is a better lens with fewer compromises than the 17-40. I am talking esp. too about the Mk II of the 16-35. I think it's worth the extra $700 or so; money is here today, gone tomorrow... a lens is with you a long time.</p>

<p>A million discussions here over the years that compare these two L lenses. I've always gone the faster glass route. No regrets.</p>

If you want the best of Canon wide Zooms, get the 16-35 II, otherwise the 17-40 is quite a good lens, just depends on how picky you are and how much you can spend on this lens. I prefer the 16-35 II.

 

Ross

<p>I own the 17-40 and I have used the 16-35. Both are very good so its really a question of the extra stop. If you need it you need it. What I did was get a 28 1.8 for wide/low light to complement my 17-40.</p>

<p>If you search around here you will find this same question asked many times over. What I do not like about the 16-35 is the big filters, all my zooms use 77 so my filters can be mixed and matched plus I always see 17-40's used so I picked one up really cheap. </p>

<p>As Tommy said, if you need the extra stop, go for it.<br>

Otherwise both lenses provide high quality and you'd be hard pushed to see any difference. If you believe in test charts you can do the comparison yourself <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412">here</a>.</p>

<p>One thing in favour of the 17-40 is its resistance to flare; the 16-35 can't match that.</p>

<p>I'm considering both those right now, too. There's a lot of good info available: Ken Rockwell reviews both and compares. One troublesome factor in his tests was flare resistance. Also, The-Digital-Picture, and the Luminous Landscape have review/compare, the latter comparing with the 16-35 MKI though.</p>

<p>I'm leaning towards the 16-35, for: f2.8, sharper corners. Like Ken Papai, my kit is fast (and faster) glass, a habit that's expensive and hard to break ;)</p>

<p>What they're really saying, underneath all their personal preferences, is that the answer to which one you should get is: "yes" . That is, get one of them if you can afford it, and if you don't prefer the mass of either one. They are both fine lenses, by most accounts (see Photozone.de reviews at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d">16link</a> and <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d">17link</a>).</p>

<p>Why does this 17 - 40 have a resistance to flare better than the 16-35?</p>

<p>A less complex lens design like the 17-40 is usually less flare-prone as there are fewer reflective surfaces in the light's path.</p>

<p>that makes sense thank you...</p>

<p>Neither lens is "better" than the other in a general way. What you need to determine is which matches up more closely with your particular shooting needs and budget.</p>

<p>If you need f/2.8 then obviously the 16-35 is the only lens that gets you there. (Though some who really want large apertures might prefer to augment a smaller aperture zoom with truly large aperture primes.) Overall the 16-35 will be a better performer at f/4 and in many ways - but not all - at f/5.6. Downsides include the much higher cost, the need for non-standard 82mm thread diameter filters (many Canon L zooms, etc. use 77mm), and the weight/bulk.</p>

<p>The 17-40 is an excellent performer at smaller apertures. If your main interest is in an ultrawide lens for stopped down landscape or architecture or similar work then the 17-40 is an excellent choice. The center sharpness of the 17-40 is excellent throughout its aperture range, and the corner performance becomes quite uniform from f/8 on. It is less expensive and smaller/lighter and uses the 77mm filters.</p>

<p>So, if your primary need is a UWA for hand held low light photography the 16-35 would likely be the better choice. If your primary need is a UWA for tripod based small aperture landscape/architecture photography the 17-40 could be a better choice.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I chose the 17-40L for a few reasons. #1 Price #2 I use this as an outdoor lens, mainly for hiking. #3 For the extra $$ I would spend on the 16-35 I can look at some great fast primes if I need them for indoor (which I dont anticipate having to do).</p>

<p>I suppose there are some types of photography where you would need the extra stop, I just don't.</p>

<p>I did not buy the first model 16-35 F2.8 as I found the IQ was not that great - no better than the 17-40 F4. When the 16-35 F2.8 II came along I tested it against my 17-40 and found the IQ was definately better. Thus I sold the 17-40 and bought the new 16-35 II. I have not really found a big flare difference between the two lenses in real world use. The exception is when using Cokin filters and therfore without the lens hood. - you have to be more careful of flare with the 16-35. <br>

On APS-C I doubt if you will really see a lot of difference between the two lenses but on full frame I prefer the 16-35 II. In addition to the cost difference between the lenses you will also have to factor in the cost and hassle of filters. The 16-35 II uses 82mm filters and you also need to buy the thin types (both UV and Circ Pol if you use them). The real hassle is if you use Cokin (or similar filters). The angle of view of the 16-35 means that you need the larger Z or X series filters. While the P series will fit even the wide angle holder causes serious vignetting. I fortunately had Z series for my MF bodies but I was forced to buy some addition filter rings for some of my other lenses (e.g. 67mm, 77mm etc...).<br>

While I never owned an APS-C body while I had the 17-40 I use my 16-35 II as the standard lens on my 7D and it works great in this role.<br>

If you need the best lens then get the 16-35 F2.8 II as it is the better of the two lenses. If you don't want the filter hassle or want to save a lot of money then the 17-40 is probably the best bargain in Canon's L series.</p>

<p><em>"...weight/bulk [of the 16-35]"</em></p>

<p>I don't get it. I really don't. (compared to the 24-70 the 16-35 is a feather)</p>

<p>Also, there is nothing that the 17-40 is "better at" than the 16-35 II. The decision is a trivial, no-brainer provided the extra $700 it cost.</p>

<p>Ken wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...weight/bulk [of the 16-35]"</em><br /> I don't get it. I really don't. (compared to the 24-70 the 16-35 is a feather)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As an individual lens, the difference isn't that great. Few people would even notice the difference in their pack. However, most of us carry more than one lens - and many who are concerned about the weight/bulk of the full kit (and who don't need f/2.8 for our work) understand that it is the total weight that matters. Compare:</p>

<ul>

<li>16-35 f/2.8 L, 24-70 f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L, or</li>

<li>17-40 f/4 L 24-105 f/4 L, 70-200 f/44 L</li>

</ul>

<p>Add to the mix choices about tripods, head, filters, etc. and it adds up. And at no gain if you don't need f/2.8 for shooting, say, stopped down landscape.</p>

<p>This becomes significant. Maybe not for you, but when I carry this stuff over a 12,000 trail-less Sierra pass I'm grateful for every ounce I can save.</p>

<p>The 16-35 is a fine lens. It just isn't always the best choice for everyone.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>BTW: I'm unaware of any reviews/reports that claim that the 16-35 II is better overall than the older version. What I have read is that it is a bit better at f/2.8, particularly in the corners, but is perhaps ever so slightly less good at other apertures. It also requires a 82mm filter thread diameter, FWIW.</p>

<p>Believe it or not, there is a big difference between 16mm and 17mm. On the wide side those small differences cause huge changes in your end product. However, of all my L glass, the 16-35-I is the lens that I regret buying the most. I almost never shoot that lens wide open, so the extra cash and weight for fast glass is unnecessary. Also, I'm still waiting for a new ultrawide FF zoom from Canon, somewhere in the 14-20mm range would be ideal for my use. Although there are countless anectodal reports that the 16-35II is sharper, most of us would never notice the difference and I think there is a marketing hype issue going on there as well.</p>

<p>17-40 is surprisingly light. IQ is excellent, especially for the price.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/9260572&size=lg<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/9492281&size=lg<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10870891&size=lg</p>

<p>Dan while you may not have seen reviews compaing the 16-35 I withe the 16-35 II based on the examples i tested there is a notable difference. Here is a comparisson secton from the Digital picture review</p>

<p>Barrel distortion is noticeably reduced at the wide end while pincushion distortion is slightly increased at 35mm. Flare is reduced over the entire focal length range - improving contrast in some comparisons. Overall, I consider the 16-35 L II sharper than the 16-35 L I, but this amount of difference varies throughout the focal length range and distance/direction from the center of the image. The II is at least as sharp or sharper in the center of the image at all focal lengths. The II is especially improved in f/2.8 non-center sharpness on the wide end. For the most part, I would consider the II an improvement in non-center sharpness overall though the 16-35 L I holds its own or even surpasses the II at certain focal lengths/apertures/points within the frame. <br /> <br /> The II has slightly less vignetting than the I. CA is very slightly reduced - but looks different as it is primarily present in the corners which are now sharper at many focal lengths and points within the frame. Both lenses deliver exposures about 1/3+ stop brighter than usual.</p>

<p>Or Fred Miranda (where it rated 9.2 vs 8.9 for the Mark I)</p>

<p>It features 3 high-precision aspherical lens elements, each of a different type: ground, replica and GMo for even better image quality than the original EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM</p>

<p>Or even Ken Rockwell</p>

<p>Sharp (better than original <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm.htm">16-35mm f/2.8</a></p>

<p>I don't know if I tested a bad copy but the 16-35 F2.8 I I tested was no better than the 17-40 f4 that I bought. The version II I now own was clearly better than the 17-40 F4 it replaced. Now it is possible that the first 16-35 I tested was a poor copy.<br /></p>

<p>Philip, actually what I did see was reviews pointing out that the primary difference is slightly better quality in the corners at f/2.8, which seemingly doesn't extend to other apertures. (This is the point you mentioned in your second paragraph.)</p>

<p>I'm not saying that the 16-35 isn't a fine lens - in fact, I pretty much say the opposite. However, as is so often the case, the bigger, faster, more expensive and altogether cooler looking option is not always the better option for every shooter.</p>

<p>As I pointed out, for certain types of shooters there is no question that the 16-35 would be a better option. But it is equally certain that for other groups of shooters that there would be no significant advantage for the sort of shooting they do. Especially on a cost/benefit basis it would be a very poor investment for the latter group.</p>

<p>By the way, referring to the KR character for verification of the quality of, well, anything is not exactly a case of using reliable sources, if you get my drift.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>