16-35mm f2.8L vs. 17-40mm f4L, differences/opinions?

[steve_mitchell2]

hi all,

At this risk of sounding ignorant, I was curious about the

differences between these two lenses. I see a lot of refernces to

the 17-40 lens, but hardly any to the 16-35 lens. Besides the

obvious (f2.8 vs f4 and focal length), are there any other

differences one should consider between these two?

thanks in advance,

Steve

[beauh44]

Hi Steve, Since the 17-40mm is so much cheaper, unless you really need that extra speed (or less DOF) most people lean towards the 17-40mm because for an "L" lens, it's really a bargain. I believe the 17-40mm might even score a little better performance-wise. IMHO, if you need a wide zoom for landscape, it's a no-brainer; the 17-40mm wins. If on the other hand, you do a lot of wedding photography, then you might want to look more closely at the 16-35. A few links:

 

16-35mm reviewed on LL: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

 

Canon's info on 16-35mm: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=7487

 

Canon's info on 17-40mm: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=8940

 

I own the 17-40mm and it's a great lens. Good luck!

[mark_chappell]

Like, Beau, I love my 17-40. However, it does distort a bit at the wide end (barrel

distortion). I'd bet the 16-35 does also, but have no experience with it.

[taner]

<p><a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml">Canon 17-40mm f/4L vs. Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L Is There a Winner?</a></p>

[awindsor]

I believe the 16-35 also exhibits barrel distortion at the wide end though I cannot recall how much. If you digitally process then you can remove the barrel distortion using various programs. The barrel distortion in the 17-40/4L is not very severe so the remapping costs very little in terms of quality.

 

With such a program the lens is very usable for architectural photography. Without digital remapping the barrel distortion in the 17-40/4L (and in every ultrawide 35mm lens I have used) is appreciable.

[eric_c1]

If you could read chinese...

 

http://www.photosharp.com.tw/cameratest/Canon17-40L.htm

 

anyway, you can compare the pictures. if you can't read chinese, its conclusion is

that if you don't need the speed, 17-40mm lens could be perform better than the 16-

35mm a little.

 

eric

[brian_potts]

I would really say it depends on what you need and how you shoot. You can read different debates and points of view. On whole, most people will give the 17-40 more credit. I personally own the 16-35, and you couldn't get me to ever give it up for the 17-40 and a bunch of cash. Why? The 17-40 is f/4 at its max. One of the only real mistakes I made when getting my lenses was purchasing a slower wide angle lens. I thought I would be shooting outside landscape type shots. I found that I was shooting indoor shots. I couldn't get by with a 17-40. I would be very frustrated with the lens. If you shoot outdoor in good light or you don't mind using the flash indoors, save yourself the money and get the 17-40. It is a very good lens. The 16-35 is also a very good lens. I have probably scrutinized mine more than any other lens due to threads like this, and it is very good. Did I get a good sample? Maybe. It is hard to say since I only have a sample of one. In the end, it is more important to get a lens for how you shoot than comparing these lenses.

[pbizarro]

I have had both. Since I want the zoom primarily for lnadscapes, the f/4 is enough for me. these two lenses perform the same in the real world, apart from the f/stop. they are both better than the 17-35 L.

 

With a bit of luck, even the f/4 lens can be useful in low light. In this shot, that's all I could use, with Velvia 100F.<div></div>

[andy10]

thats a nice picture.. are you allowed to take a picture inside the mosque..

[tom_swanson]

Luminous Landscape does a comparison. Search their archives.

[digitmstr]

To me the "obvious" difference in aperture is *very* significant and the main reason to purchase it over the slower version.

 

But, like any thing else it's up to you and what your needs are.

[sam_worthington]

When you are composing an image in the viewfinder, you are looking through that lens at its maximum aperture. So, with that in mind, the fact that the 16-35 is a stop faster means the image in the viewfinder is a stop brighter. In a dark room or in low light, this makes a pretty big difference. Auto focus also seems to work a little better for the same reason- brighter image, more contrast, faster auto-focus. I use both lenses, and to be honest when I am outdoors I cannot tell the difference. Move indoors, however, and there is one.