17-35 or 17-40

[andrew_pastore]

Which of these lenses are a better choice?

[josh1]

whichever is more expensive...

[jon_austin]

Andrew:

 

Check out:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

 

and

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

 

Hopefully, you can "connect the dots" between the 16-35 vs 17-35 review and the 16-35 vs 17-40 review, to glean the information you need to determine which is the better choice for you.

 

For me, it was (is) the 17-40.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Assuming you're talking about Canon's L-series lenses, as opposed to perhaps some third-party vendors' offerings (dunno if anyone else makes a 17-35 or 17-40) ...</p>

 

<p>17-35: Faster. Discontinued, so you'll be buying it on the used market.</p>

 

<p>17-40: For some uses, the extra 5mm will be significant - for instance, this is probably a better walkabout lens for a DSLR with a 1.6x crop factor. Better weather resistance. Slightly lighter. The Canon Camera Museum says the maximum length of this lens is almost <em>twice</em> that of the 17-35, but I'm guessing that's dependent on zoom position; width is the same, and minimum length is probably similar.</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure I've seen a comparison of these two. I've seen comparisons of the 17-35 and its replacement, the 16-35; the 16-35 is widely regarded as being better. Canon says the 17-40 is just as good as the 16-35; if that's true (and marketing statements are not always 100% truthful), then the 17-40 should be slightly better than the 17-35. If it were me, I'd assume they're both comparable until proven otherwise.</p>

 

<p>Did you have a particular application in mind? Neither lens is better for all possible uses; the 17-35 will be better for some people and the 17-40 will be better for others.</p>

[bellavance]

The 17-35 isn't too good, and the 17-40 is generally believed to be a little superior to the 16-35.

 

I have a 17-40 but if I were to buy it now, I'd get the 16-35 because it's f/2.8.

 

Pierre

[mikael_latorre]

I currently own the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L USM and the Canon EF 17-35/2.8L USM.

 

I normally use Canon EOS 1V-HS bodies.

 

When i compare my two lenses, I can´t say I notice ANY difference In optical quality, of cource I´m not a pro and I don´t "test them"

I just use and enjoy them more or less every day. For me that is what counts.

 

On the plus side for the newer EF 16-35/2.8L lens:

 

1. It´s better sealed.

2. More sturdy built.

3. It´s Closest focusing distance: 0.28cm (compared to 0.42cm for the 17-35 version).

 

 

If you can get the EF 17-35/2.8L USM second hand In good shape, I would go for It. If you don´t really need the better sealed one.

 

I´ve just shot a couple of rolls with my friends EF 17-40/4L USM.

I think it´s a very good lens. Here In Spain it costs 625 euro, It´s well worth it´s price.

 

If you don´t need the 2.8 aperture and you want to buy a brand new lens, don´t hesitate: Buy the EF 17-40/4L USM !

I personally like a bright viewfinder, so my personal favourite is the....

Canon EF 17-35/2.8L USM. Despite of what I read on the internet.

 

I submit a photo taken with my EF 17-35/2.8L USM the 26th of march at the veteran rally In Lloret de Mar, Costa Brava, Spain.

The driver of this car was 82 years old !

[robert_turner]

The luminous landscape review cited should not be extrapolated. It is obvious to me they had a poor sample of the 17-35. The worst thing I know of with respect to that lens is that, like nearly EVERY lens, there is a sample variation, and perhaps it is a bit greater with this particular model.

 

I owned one and loved it, and my 16-35 isn't ANY better at all optically, from what I can tell.

 

I think an attractively priced 17-35 2.8 merits serious consideration.

 

rt

[jon_austin]

"The Canon Camera Museum says the maximum length of this lens [the 17-40] is almost twice that of the 17-35, but I'm guessing that's dependent on zoom position; width is the same, and minimum length is probably similar."

 

The 17-40 is a fixed length lens; with its internal zoom and internal focussing, the length of the barrel never changes.

[ryanjoseph]

I would go for the 17-40. It is a extremly good lens, and lighter and cheaper than the 17-35. It is also more resistant to flare and ghosting, but in the end its a toss up.

[gerry_szarek]

I use the 17-40F4L on a 10D, pluses it never flares (it has an extra internal baffle which looks like an iris diaphram), it's sharp, and has good color & contrast, on the MINUS side the lens shade is HUGE and filters cost a lot of money (FYI if you need it to be weather sealed you NEED the filter).

 

Gerry

[whayne_padden]

17-40 f/4L is a wonderful lens; I think Canon's best UWA zoom. Beautiful colour, contrast and good sharpness, flare resistance, bokeh. And it seems to have better QC than 16-35 f/2.8L.

[mike_p2]

Guys,

 

What exactly UV filter do you use to keep Canon 17-40mm f/4L lens protected? Any vignetting? Can the regular lens cover be attached on top of the filter?

 

Thanks!

[gaius1]

I use a B+W filter, there is no vignetting, and yes the cap can be attached over the filter. The 17-40L is a fantastic lens; only f/4 but it's half the price of the 16-35L, so I guess it depends on how much an extra mm at the wide end and one extra stop is worth to you. Took mine on an expedition into the Arctic Circle and it performed flawlessly.

[herman_hiel]

Will you need/use the f2.8? If you shoot landscapes, you might be using a tripod and then it doesn't matter whether you have a f2.8 or a f4 lens. If you shoot a lot inside it might make a difference.

I am happy with the 17-40 but I never used the 17-35.

[josh1]

i'm interested in the 17-40L. seems like everyone uses it on DSLR's. does anyone here use it on film cameras? how are the corners and edges of the frames with this lens?

[awindsor]

I have a 17-40 4L and no digital body. I have never seen vignetting on this lens but I

am a landscape shooter and almost never shoot wide open. Wide open and at its

widest setting I have heard it shows some light fall off.

 

It is a very nice lens. I would recommend it without hesitation if you didn't need the

extra stop of speed you get by going with the primes.

[andrei_lau1]

I have a 17-35 but haven't used the 17-40. I like the 17-35 and it is one of the favourable lens for me. Though I found some vignetting wide open. Anyway for landscape it seldom needs to shoot at wide open. From the web there are tons of good reviews on the 17-40. So I think it depends on what offer you get. Either one will be good choice. BTW, seems that 17-35 does not compatiable with ETTL2 as it does not give distance information. I may be wrong, any one know about it?

[astcell]

I want the 16-35. I want the 2.8. BUY THE BEST AND YOU ONLY CRY ONCE.

[mike_p2]

Thank you, Guy!

 

I wonder if I really need to spend about $100 for a lens-protecting UV filter. Will a $30 Canon or Tiffen filter be suitable? Will multi-coating make a real (vs. theoretical) difference with this lens?

[jonathan_laufersweiler]

Noone <i>needs</i> a hundred dollar filter. If you just want protection, get a $10

Sunpak. If you want protection and multi-coating, buy a $30 Hoya. For most lenses I

consider Hoyas "good enough." If you want no-compromises quality, (rugged brass

fittings, lens-grade glass and coatings, minimum sacrifice in contrast and clarity) get

a B+W (made by German view-camera lens foundry Schneider-Kruenach). <p> If you

care enough to get L glass, you probably want one. It's a false economy to buy a $700

kens and then skimp on the glass you place in front of it. The Hoya's still not bad

though.

[yakim_peled1]

Really good wide angle zooms seems to be hard to manufacture. I had the 17-35/2.8 USM L but didn't like it. Sharpness was unacceptable below f/5.6. Flare was always a main concern (and yes, I used the lens hood at all times). Distortion was evident at 20mm and below. In addition, I used it almost exclusively in either 24mm or 35mm settings. Thus, I sold it and bought the 35/2 and 24/2.8 primes. Optically, they are far superior.

 

FWIW, I considered the 17-40/4 but went for the primes as they are lighter, cheaper and faster. No regrets but if I'd also needed anything wider, I'd certainly get the 17-40/4.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[andrew_pastore]

Thanks everyone, I ordered the 17-40 based on everyons comments. I am going to use this lens for landscapes, but more for shooting entire supercell thunderstorms. I would love to get primes, but when you are chasing a storm, its not convineint to change lenses!!!

[mike_p2]

Thank you, Jonathan, for your suggestions!

 

The reason I asked the question is that I view this from even a more radical point of view than yours: it may be a fasle economy to spend $$ on a very good lens and then...put any glass in front of it.

 

Now, if I decide to go as far as using the extra glass, I become really curious as how much difference I will see between $30 and $130 glass. Or, for that matter, between no glass and $130 glass. And I mean REAL difference on the images.

 

For example, the lens I'm talking about is known for low flare. I'd guess that ANY filter will jeopardize this. Now, will a B+W filter cause NOTICABLY less flare than, let's say, Hoya? Same question for milti-coated vs. non-multi-coated glass. Again, I know the THEORETICAL answer, so I'd like to hear (or, better yet, to see) the real life comparison.