16-35L mk1 vs 17-40L

[bjscharp]

A question.

 

I'm currently shopping around for a wide-angle zoom for use on an EOS 30. I'll be

using it primarily for landscapes.

 

I had pretty much decided on the 17-40L, as I don't need the 2 extra stops the

16-35 offers (Most shooting will be done at f11 or smaller).

 

However, when looking around for second hand opportunities, I came across a

mark 1 16-35L f2.8, which was then well below the price for a new (or even second

hand) 17-40. I placed a bid, but the price is rising now (more takers), and getting

close

to the price of a new 17-40.

 

So now I'm wondering how far I'm willing to go. Like I said, I don't really need the

wide aperture, though it would (of course) be nice to have (The lens could see

some second action as an indoor lens on my 400D).

 

Thus, my question is twofold:

- How does the 16-35 mk1 perform in comparison to the 17-40? I've read that barrel

distortion is worse on the 16-35 compared to both the mk2 and the 17-40.

- If the 16-35 mk1 would be a good buy, what price would be acceptable? What did

these lenses cost new? A new 16-35 mk2 goes here for about 1350 euros, a new

17-40 for 650 euros.

 

Any advice will be appreciated!

 

Regards,

Bernard

[colin carron]

Bernard, I have the 17-40 L and use it for landscapes and architecture. It is a very good lens and I don't think you will be disappointed. Indeed the whole Canon f/4 comstant aperture series 'L' lenses (17-40 L, 24 - 105 L, 70-200 L), are very fine bits of glass and, relatively speaking, very good value.

 

I have never used a 16-35 L but all the reviews agree that there is little to choose between the 16-35 and the 17-40 except for that extra stop.

 

So don't be too disappointed when the 16-35 climbs beyond your price range.

[chrisjb]

G`day

 

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

 

hope this helps

[bill_morrow1]

Canon rep at the CES show in LV suggested I would be happier with the

17-40 over the 16-35, firstly because he and everyone he knew thought it was a sharper lens, and of course it is less costly. I'm not sure of this, but I think there was a second version introduced after that conversation. If so, it might be a different story. I have the 17-40, and it's done everything I've ever needed.

[markonestudios]

B.J, I have found the 17-40L to be a superb lens. As you rightly point out, the f/2.8 on the 16-35L will mean little as you will likely be shooting stopped down. I would simply buy a 17-40L brand new and save 650 Euros... Even if the Mk1 16-35L is in good condition, it won't be covered by a warranty for that extra peace of mind, so for me it's a no-brainer, given the intended use...17-40L

[g dan mitchell]

The 17-40 is as good or better than the 16-35 at small aperture typical of landscape

photography, though this is more true of full frame than on crop since FF permits even

smaller apertures w/o diffraction blur.

 

If you shoot a lot with large apertures the situation reverses.

[wgpinc]

Good time to buy the 17-40mm lens with the new yesterday instant $50 rebate bringing the price down. One of the best Canon lenses and bargains in the L line. http://www.adorama.com/CA1740U.html?searchinfo=canon%2017-40mm&item_no=2 I use one and recommend it. One of the few Canon lenses I haven't heard much internet complaining about. Good luck!

[stephen sullivan]

I've shot both lenses on my EOS 1 (sorry I can't post images from both) and I can say

IMO the 17-40L was the better lens. Sharper corner to corner and with better contrast.

 

5D and EF 17-40L<div></div>

[bjscharp]

Thanks for all the responses! Especially the link posted by Chris JB answered a lot of my questions (if the mk1 of the 16-35 was significantly different from the mk 2 one, judging from that review and the reviews I've seen of the mk2, looks like it's noticably less sharp at the wide end)

 

Also glad to hear that a lot of people are happy with the 17-40 as a landscape lens. The bidding has by now passed over the price of a new 17-40, so unless I see a good 2nd hand one anytime soon, I think I'll indeed be hopping on the rebate-bandwagon soon.

 

Thanks again for al the replies!

[stephen sullivan]

By comparison, a very poor one 20D & the EF-S 10-22.

 

If you've got a 30D, you might want to check out the EF-S 10-22.<div></div>

[bjscharp]

I have a 400D and a 30 (not D), and I'll be using the lens mostly on the film body.

 

I think backpacking (which is when I'll be shooting the landscapes) is still more practical with an `old fashioned' camera, as I don't have to lug around a charger for that one time a week when I'm even in the vincinity of electricity. Otherwise, i would indeed have had a serious look at the 10-22...

[chris.sager]

Don't forget to look at the new Tokina 11-16! I plan on adding it to my kit.

[bob.velkov]

17-40L is better than the first version of the 16-35L, however the 16-35LII is the best

one.