16-35 II or 17-40 for Landscape

[images_in_light_north_west]

I have the 17-40 and am almost happy with it although my 24-105 is much

sharper, is the 16-35 II a better lens for landscape, I currently use a 40D

and will buy the 5D in spring or 5D mk II later. Your thoughts on this ?

[colinsouthern]

Contentious topic, but yes - the 16-35/2.8L II lens is the better lens.

 

As always, correct capture sharpening will make more of a difference than the difference between the two lenses though.

[will king]

Take a look the portfolio of Marc Adamus here. He just switched from the 17-40mmL to the 16-35mmL II. He states that edge to edge sharpness is superior on the 16-35mmL II.

[gdanmitchell]

For landscape on FF there is not a lot of reason to switch to the 16-35mm f/2.8. The main

advantage of that lens that makes it worth the much higher price is its good performance

at large apertures, in particular at f/2.8.

 

If you are a typical landscape shooter, you'll find that the best apertures for DOF and

uniform image across the frame on FF are in the f/8-f/16 range. At these apertures the

17-40 at least equals the 16-35 by all reports.

 

So, bottom line - if you are mainly shooting FF landscape in the "traditional" way (small

apertures for great DOF) then there is little reason to pay extra for the 16-35. If you need

to shoot at these focal lengths for non-landscape subjects at very large apertures the 16-

35 is a great performer and could well be your lens.

 

Dan

[jo7hs2]

Ross,

 

The 16-35/2.8L II is a better lens.

 

Whether it is a better "landscape" lens is something of a subjective matter, assuming better isn't just a matter of overall resolution and sharpness. The slightly wider wide end of the 16-35 is a plus for many landscape situations, but the slight shorter long end is a negative. The f/4 max. aperture of the 17-40/4L isn't a huge deal for landscape work. The big question isn't whether the 16-35/2.8L is a better lens overall, but whether it fits your budgetary and stylistic needs better than the 17-40. My stylistic needs (generally waterfalls and other stationary nature subjects) did not require f/2.8 or the extra mm of wide angle coverage, so my budgetary needs won out.

[images_in_light_north_west]

Budget not being a concern, my style is landscape and I want the best of the zooms.

[jo7hs2]

Ross,

 

Sounds like you have your mind made up, you just can't get it out. ;)

 

Reports suggest that the 16-35/2.8L II is somewhat better with regards to edge sharpness, and somewhat sharper overall. With the ability to use f/2.8, I'd say that puts it over the mark as being the "better" of the two zooms.

 

Just keep in mind that it is heavier, and uses a massive 82mm filter thread. Personally, I think the 17-40/4L is more than sufficient for most landscape shooters, but if you feel you need the absolutely best you can get in this zoom range, the 16-35/2.8L II squeezes out a victory.

[images_in_light_north_west]

This also gives me better capabilities for indoor low light, which I do also but primarily its for landscape, maybe I didn't get the best copy of a 17-40, as far as filters, that I will have to see if Lee makes an 82mm adapter that works with my Lee holder and a B + W CPL

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Joshua, the 16-35 is better at edge to edge sharpness (but not perfect either) <i>at the widest apertures</i>. The 17-40 provides quite good corner sharpness and excellent center sharpness at smaller

apertures. All the tests and reports that I've seen tend to confirm that the 16-35 is "better" for those who need the wide apertures, but no better at all at the smaller apertures typically used for landscape.

 

<p>For a landscape photographer - at least those who generally aren't shooting wide open - the 16-35 is <i>not a better lens</i>. For me, "betterness" is a combination factors that determine how well a lens

performs for the purposes I use it. The 16-35 does not perform better for my landscape work, and its extra cost and size/weight reduce its value <i>to me for landscape</i>

 

<p>Please understand that I'm not knocking the 16-35mm L lens at all. It is a really fine lens and when you need what it provides it is the best Canon product in its class. But "best" is not an absolute thing here - it is

relative to the specific needs of the photographer.

 

<p>I've posted a <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2008/01/21/corner-sharpness-of-the-canon-17-40mm-f4-l-lens-on-full-frame/">slightly funky test photo</a> (no esthetic value claimed :-) that

shows somewhat clinically the corner performance of a 17-40 shot in "landscape mode." It shows the full image at reduced magnification, along with 100% crops from the center and lower left corner. You'll notice

that the corner area includes grass, one of the most difficult subjects to resolve, and that this part of the image is much closer than the focus point in the center of the frame. With all of that in mind, the quality is

really quite fine for 17mm.

 

<p>Take care,

 

<p>Dan