Lens test results: 17-40/f4 v 16-35/f2.8I

<p>I've posted the results of a detailed Imatest <a href="http://terragalleria.com/blog/2010/08/17/canon-wide-angle-zooms-comparisonreview-16-35f2-8-l-ii-v-17-40f4-l/">comparison between the two Canon wide-angle zooms</a>, the 17-40/f4 and 16-35/f2.8II, as well as my personal evaluation of the usefulness of the 16-35/f2.8 lens. Since this is a frequently asked topic here, I thought that this additional data point would be of interest.</p>

<p>Your results match mine almost 100%. Last year I compared my 17-40 with the 16-35 and came to the conclusion that it was not worth buying the more expensive lens, especially for my landscape work.</p>

<p>Excellent comparison of these lens. Makes my choice/decision even easier. Thanks for saving me some cash.</p>

<p>Few are using f2.8 anyway for landscape.</p>

<p>The faster lens usually helps focusing faster, and focusing in low light (both auto or manual). Did you compare in this aspect. Most of the time we reject a blurred picture not because we require more sharpness than what the lens could possibly give but because our situation was not good enough for the lens to attain its best performance. (If you restrict to landscapes only, that's a different story)</p>

As I wrote at your report, your conclusions are in sync with mine. The 16-35 is certainly a fine lens, but it is only worth the

extra cost (and heavier weight, larger bulk, and odd filter size) if you need to shoot at f/2.8 at UWA focal lengths on a full

frame body. If your need is mostly for shooting smaller aperture photographs from the tripod, there is little or no advantage

in getting the 16-35. And if you shoot a cropped sensor camera, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is probably a better choice.

 

Dan

<p>John (Tran) is correct. Besides, faster lenses would be able to use as many cross-type AF points in DSLRs as possible.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if you shoot a cropped sensor camera, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is probably a better choice</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And of course, they have to make it 82mm thread! 17-40mm or 16-35mm is virtually not so important. The big deal is in the f/2.8 of the lens. And of course, in order to do this, so that it could be used as a hand-held lens, as well as to preserve the quality of a fast lens, 82mm is essential. Almost all L fast lenses have 77mm thread, until this lens. Note that the version 1 of this 16-35mm lens has 77mm thread! There must be a reason Canon changed the size of the front element!</p>

<p>Reportedly, the only significant difference in performance between the previous and the new versions of the 16-35 is somewhat better corner performance at f/2.8, so I suspect that some redesign with this in mind led to the 82mm filter thread.</p>

Thanks for this thorough assessment, QT. I was always convinced that the 17-40 is in most optical aspects the equal to the 16-35. I do appreciate that there is an appreciable difference in FOV at 16mm vs 17mm, and that the extra stop aids slightly faster focus but my 17 is more than wide enough for my needs and I don't really struggle to achieve focus even in lower light ;-)

<p>I enjoyed the comparison study, though I'm curious as to how you found that the 17-40 has 2.8% barrel distortion at 16mm :)</p>

<p>People who dismiss the 16-35 because of the beginner notion "<em>if you don't need to shoot at f/2.8..."</em> are totally missing it. You've already been schooled by the more cogent, comprehensive comments above.</p>

<p>There is not one single advantage of the 17-40 except it's cheaper, obviously.</p>

<p>John, I agree with your comment. I mentioned in the summary the focusing advantage of the f2.8 lens, but this is not something which is amenable to testing with numerical results, unlike some other aspects of lens performance, hence I did not elaborate further. However, my observation has been that the focusing advantage resides not so much in speed as in accuracy. It is easier to focus critically (using live view) a f2.8 lens than a f4 lens.<br>

Ken, on a light/small body such as the 5D, the weight/size difference is noticeable. The 17-40 has also slightly better flare resistance.</p>

<p>I've seen some test shots of the 17-40 vs 16-35II, and the main impression I took away is that the 17-40 detail was a bit vague comparing, but not night-and-day. First and foremost for me would be that extra mm at the wide end: Setting up a camera and shooting the same scene you will get noticeably wider with the 16-35.</p>

<p>That said, 17mm on full frame is pretty dang wide, and with the price/weight/build/filter size, that's the one I went for.</p>

<p>I ended up with the 17-40 but Im actually curious to hear why 16-35 II owners picked that lens over the 17-40</p>

<p>Ken wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>People who dismiss the 16-35 because of the beginner notion "if you don't need to shoot at f/2.8..." are totally missing it. You've already been schooled by the more cogent, comprehensive comments above.</em><br /> <em>There is not one single advantage of the 17-40 except it's cheaper, obviously.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ken, being unnecessarily insulting in a reply is often an indication that the poster is insecure about their position, or that the position has little to support it. One doesn't choose the 17-40 because one is a "beginner" or because one is incapable of cogent thinking.</p>

<p>Your 16-35mm f/2.8 is a fine lens. It is an excellent choice for those who need a full-frame UWA lens for handheld shooting in low light. Here is outperforms the 17-40 in that it has an additional stop of aperture at f/2.8 and it seems to be better in the corners at f/4. For some folks it is exactly the right choice.</p>

<p>On the other hand, imagine that you are me. You largely shoot a UWA zoom at smaller apertures for landscape or architecture or similar and typically are working from the tripod when you do this. You also own even larger aperture primes for those times when you need even larger aperture. And you often do your photography on foot - hiking or in some cases carrying a weeks worth of equipment over 12,000+ Sierra passes.</p>

<p>For a person like me there would be exactly zero advantage in shooting the 16-35, and there would actually be disadvantages. The 17-40 performs as well or perhaps very marginally (but probably insignificantly) better at the apertures I typically shoot at. It is smaller. It is lighter. And, yes, it is less expensive. It covers a slightly wider focal length range. It seems to be a bit more resistant to flare.</p>

<p>It is most certainly not the case that the only reason to choose the 17-40 over the 16-35 is because one is a "beginner," can't think clearly, or is a cheapskate.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>From the MTF charts on the report. The 16-35 seems better at f4 over most its range and it's better at f8 too (except) at c35mm. Whether anyone can notice it is another thing.</p>

<p>There's a smallish gif example of 16mm vs 17mm here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/17_35VS16_35/">http://www.fredmiranda.com/17_35VS16_35/</a></p>

<p>Albeit, comparing first gen 16-35 to the older 17-35. FWIW: claimed focal length vs actual can vary somewhat, as I've found with 24-70 vs 24-105 (the latter noticeably wider at 24).</p>