Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM vs. 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM

[smarksphotography]

<p> <br>

Hi, <br>

Lately, I have been getting asked to shoot some landscapes (gardens, etc.). Using my 24-70 I felt a little constrained. <br>

So I am considering either the 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM or the. 16-35mm f/2.8 L II. <br>

I have a full crop camera. The price difference between these two lens is substantial (17-40mm being about half the cost) and I was wondering just how justified this difference is. <br>

I know that Canon seems to charge a premium for their "very best" lenses, and I usually accept that, but in this case, I am wondering if it is really worth it - especially since I have at least another lens on my wish list. <br>

The typical use would be architectural landscapes - often during the golden hours rather than all day in direct light; but I'd be using a tripod. <br>

Side uses would include some general use landscape and shots of groups. <br>

Ideally, I'd like to hear from people who used both. <br>

From reading reviews, the sharpness is about equal for both lenses (?).<br>

Thanks in advance, <br>

Spencer </p>

 

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I use and absolutely love the canon 17-40 F4L. My other lens is the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 which in my comparison is very close to the Canon 24-70 in IQ but doesn't touch the Canon in build quality. I find I very seldom ever use F2.8 and generally don't need it espeacially in the range in which my Canon 580 EX flash can cover.<br>

For the work you a shooting I would definetly recommend the 17-40 F4L since you would also probably never shoot landscapes at F2.8. Many have said the F4L are often a little sharper than their big brothers the F2.8. To me 1 stop is not worth double the price unless it is on my zoom lenses where I have to keep the shutter speeds higher.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>not sure what you mean by full crop? If you have a crop camera I would go with a 10-22 unless you plan on going ff in the next year.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>sorry, full crop was meant to mean full frame. </p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Let's say that I wish my excellent 17-40/4 was a 17-40/2.8. I prefer the extra 5mm reach of the 17-40, however. </p>

<p>If I had to buy again, I would lean towards the 16-35/2.8 II for the improved optical design. </p>

[grego1]

<p>hi,<br>

i owned 16-35mm f2.8 L II for about year and half (i sold it in april and got 35mm f1.4 L) and all i can say it's amazing lens. saying that i shot a few times with 17-40mm and that's amazing lens too :) i don't know anyone who would be able to say the difference between two of them (given that you comparing 16mm to 17mm and at f4 or over)... if you need extra speed, definitely "yes" go for it, if - as you say - you need it for landscapes i don't think you need to spend twice more money to get the same (virtually) results...</p>

[peter_popp1]

<p>Be aware that some reviews comparing the two (like the Luminous-Landscape review) compare the early version of the 16-35, and not the 16-35/2.8 II. But then again, this site compared the two 16-35/2.8s and couldn't see much difference.<br>

I have the 17-40/4 and love it. I use it most of the time at f/5.6-11 for scenics and landscapes. I use my 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 for low-light stuff. Never felt the need for the f/2.8</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>17-40 if your stopped down, 16-35 II if your wide open</p>

[peter_popp1]

<p>Be aware that some reviews comparing the two (like the Luminous-Landscape review) compare the early version of the 16-35, and not the 16-35/2.8 II. But then again, this site compared the two 16-35/2.8s and couldn't see much difference.<br>

I have the 17-40/4 and love it. I use it most of the time at f/5.6-11 for scenics and landscapes. I use my 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 for low-light stuff. Never felt the need for the f/2.8</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I bought the original 16-35 and not for one second since have I regretted buying the better option: 1mm wider, faster, and better IQ (esp. at 24mm to 35mm as basically the book says about the common comparisons between these two lenses).</p>

<p>I live by one rule, buy the fast glass when you have the option, EVEN for landscapes. Also, by all accounts the II version of the 16-35 is even better. A no brainer decision I think.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>This question is asked a lot - so do search for more complete background.</p>

<p>Neither lens is "better" in a general way - it all depends on what/how you shoot.</p>

<p>The great strength of the 16-35 is its large aperture performance. If you need to shoot handheld at f/2.8 and f/4 in low light then the higher price of the 16-35 (and the need to use expensive non-standard 82mm diameter filters) may well be worth it to you. The functional difference between the two versions of the 16-35 is usually described more or less along the lines of "a bit better a f/2.8 but no better at smaller apertures.)</p>

<p>If you are shooting small aperture "landscape" style subjects then the 17-40 is an excellent performer stopped down, especially on full frame camera where you can easily shoot it at f/11 or f/16 with fine results.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[enrique_bocanegra]

<p>Neither of those two. If you want to be serious about your architectural and landscape work, I would consider the TS E 17mm f3.5 L. I have used both lenses you mentioned, and since I did mostly landscapes on a tripod at f8 or smaller, I rarely found the need for the 16-35. Although If i had the budget, i would want(not need) the 16-35. But since I am saving up, I chose to buy neither and wait for the initial reviews of the tilt shift 17mm. I also rented the ts e 24mm, and I am in love with tilt shift lenses. Cant wait for the 17mm to come out, it will be my dream come true.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"Neither of those two. If you want to be serious about your architectural and landscape work..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ahem. So, you regard those of us who use those two lenses for landscape or architecture photographs to be "not serious?" Double ahem...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>Spencer, the 17-40 is just as good as the 16-35 in terms of overall quality, but obviously doesn't go quite as wide, which is, for the purposes you state, the most important difference in my opinion. That 1mm is actually pretty significant: 17mm is extremely wide but 16mm is even more so. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 for garden work seems to me to be completely unimportant since you are unlikely to be shooting at f/2.8 anyway. By f/8 the output of these lenses is essentially indistinguishable.</p>

<p>I second Enrique's point that TSE lenses are ideal for this situation, although they are very costly indeed. I routinely make perspective correction on landscape and architectural shots in post-processing, but to be sure I'd get better quality if I shot with the TSE lens in the first place. Most examples you see with TSE lenses are for correcting perspective when the lens is pointed up (to fix converging verticals), but they also can correct perspective when pointing the lens down, which is also common in landscape. The tilt feature is just what the doctor ordered for pictures of flower beds, especially at the longer focal lengths (45mm and 90mm), and can't be duplicated in post-processing. All of the TSE lenses would be useful for gardens, I think, but I would caution that the 17mm TSE is probably too wide and specialized for most shots and would suggest renting the 24 and 45 (and maybe even the 90) before making any purchase to see what they do for you in practice. In the meanwhile, try perspective correction in Photoshop to preview the effect. You might even find, as I do, that it is sufficient for many (most?) purposes.</p>

[markonestudios]

I haven't shot with the 16-35L. I have great respect for it, but IMHO I don't think, for your purposes, that it will ggive you the best bang for your buck. The 17-40L is an awesome lens. Superb build, excellent optics. If you're using a tripod and shooting at f/8 or smaller, I reckon you'll be hard pressed to see any diffeence in image quality between the two. And if you're shooting landscapes, I'd think that the 1mm difference on the wide end would easily me made up by taking a couple of steps back :)

<p>The 16-35II also uses 83mm filters. Less easy to come by than the 77mm of the 17-40L. That may or may not be an issue...

<p>Why not try to rent them and try them both out?

[rdavila]

<p>I love my 17-40 however Photozone.de gave it a not-that-good review for full frame.<br>

In any case and specially for landscapes where you might want to use a polarizing filter, beware the 16-35 II has a 82m filter thread whereas the 17-40 uses 77mm filters, which is common with other fast "L" lenses. Getting a high quality cir-pol at 82mm might also get expensive......<br>

happy shooting</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I went from the 17-40 to the 16-35 II but I shoot film and always full frame bodies. On an APS-C body I suspect there will be almost no difference in image quality so you are really paying the extra for the F2.8 aperture. Both are great lenses.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Thanks for all the great comments. Still kinda confused, but definitely there some things to think about. I hadn't even considered the TSE lenses and will have to investigate those more closely. On the other hand, it sounds like the standard answer also applies: if money is no option, the 16-35 is a safe bet. The good news is that if money is a consideration, then 17-40 doesn't sound like much of a compromise in light of the of the price difference. It seems (at least to me) that this trade off is much grayer for other lens comparisons (e.g. the 70-200 choices). Thanks again. </p>