Anyone who says the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 is nuts

[patricks]

also, take a look at someone who is using e.g. the 17-40/4 L a lot, like <a href="http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/"> David Nightingale at chromeasia.com</a>. he uses it a lot, mostly at iso 100 and stopped down.

[ericpetersonphoto]

I have used both lenses. It is just as sharp. Its much sharper at 40 mm ;). And much less sharp at 2.8 ;) Call me crazy. I sold my 16-35 and kept the 17-40.

[cscooper]

Perhaps this thread has been beat to death, but I have to pipe in my two cents. I come from a cinematography background, where my goal has always been to use the FASTEST lens possible for shallow Depth of Field. Usually shooting with T/1.0 lenses.

 

Enter the EOS 20D with it's crop factor (greater depth of field) and suddently I need every ounce of lens speed I can get. My favorite lens to use on the EOS 20D (other than the 16-35 I've been saving up for) is Canon's 50mm f/1.4. Taking the 1.6x crop factor into consideration, this lens is equivalent (in DISTANCE/FRAME size) to an 80mm lens on a 36mm image plane (i.e. Full Frame Digital or 35mm film).

 

The distance/frame size is equivalent, but the DOF is NOT! Think about it. If you put this lens on a 35mm camera and frame up your subject, you'll have some INCREADIBLY BEAUTIFUL shallow depth of field (I realize this is subjective). Now, without moving your feet, pick up your 20D with it's 22.5mm image plane and you'll have the same depth of field, BUT your framing will be too tight. You'll have to back up to match the original composition and by backing up, you'll gain greater depth of field (less beautifully blurred backgrounds).

 

In other words, what you used to shoot at an F4 (35mm), you now HAVE to shoot at 2.8 (22mm) in order to come close to the same DOF.

 

Will Canon stop making the f/2.8 lenses. I certainly hope not. At least not until I can afford a EOS-1DS Mark II. And that will be a cold day in...

 

(side note: I've been saving for the 16-35mm f/2.8L so that I can get a nice wide lens as well as a standard lens for portraiture. The 16-35mm will do that for me, effective focal range, of course, will be 26mm-56mm with an equivalent DOF to f/4.0)

 

Anyone else hear what I'm saying?<div></div>

[jbq]

Clark: I totally agree with you.

[daniel_taylor]

"Anyone else hear what I'm saying?"

 

Yes. But if shallow DoF is your objective you would be better off getting a 17-40 f/4L AND a 50 f/1.4 rather than just a 16-35 f/2.8L.