EF 16-35/2.8 L II & 17-40/4 L comparison

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I'm wondering how the newer version of the EF 16-35 compares to the 17-40. I've read some comparative reviews of the earlier version of the 16-35 and the 17-40 that say the slower zoom is at least as good optically as the faster zoom. I realize that the 17-40 isn't great wide open or at 17mm, particularly in the corners. But is the 16-35 II any better?</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I have both lenses currently, and just finished a comparison test between the two. My 17-40 is a cherry picked sample and best of 3 that I've owned, has been my primary landscape lens (there really wasn't that much difference between the three copies though). Here's my short list of takeaways after having done the comparison test.</p>

<p>* The 17-40 has better contrast, darker blacks. Probably irrelevant once post processing is involved.<br>

* The 16-35 is sharper in the extreme corners at 16mm than the 17mm is at 17mm. (I shoot at the widest zoom setting a LOT so this matters to me)<br>

* 16mm really is noticeably wider than 17mm.<br>

* At 24mm, the 17-40 actually does better in the nearfield corners than the 16-35.<br>

* At 35mm the 16-35 has a slight edge in sharpness over the 17-40 but it's pretty much a wash.<br>

* Both lenses are very sharp.<br>

* The sunburst on the 16-35mm II is better than the 17-40mm. (Shooting into the sun at f/22)</p>

<p>I think I've got good sharp representative samples of both lenses, and am testing them on full frame with a 1Ds III at multiple zoom settings through multiple apertures. I think that the 17-40 is great wide open, pretty much the same as the 16-35 II at f/4. Both have really good central sharpness through the majority of the frame from wide open, with the corners improving as you stop down.</p>

<p>My takeaway from the whole process was this.... Both these lenses are very good, and absolutely capable of making sharp images that will print well at large sizes. I wouldn't hesitate to use either. I think I'm going to keep the 16-35 II because of the better sunstar, the slightly wider focal length, and the slightly better corners at the widest setting where I frequently shoot. The faster aperture doesn't matter too much to me since I've got the 35L and 24L II, but I could see it coming in handy sometimes. </p>

<p>I don't think that it's "worth" the cost of the upgrade (especially given the cost of replacement filters!) but I would probably want to make the jump eventually so I might as well do it now. </p>

[sattler123]

<p>I came to the same conclusions as Sheldon - the two lenses are very similar in performance and for me the 16-35 was not worth the extra money - I shoot stopped down to at least f11 most of the time and the two lenses become almost identical at that small aperture. If I shot weddings it would be a different story - but I do mostly landscapes. I love my 17-40!</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>Another vote for the 17-40. Great landscape lens, and I use it quite often as an outdoor walk-around lens and don't mind only going to f4 for the widest aperture.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Its really about the 1 stop. I have used both ( I own 17-40 ) and both are very good. I considered selling my 17-40 mainly because I never shoot really wide but based on advice I got here I have been trying to use it more and its really a fun little lens that also does a nice job getting close. </p><div></div>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The general opinion seems to be:</p>

<ul>

<li>If your primary need is to shoot ultra wide hand held photographs in low light without flash on a full frame camera... the 16-35 f/2.8 is probably your lens. The reason is almost exclusively related to the fact that it has f/2.8 and that it can be better in the corners at f/4.</li>

<li>If your primary need is to shoot small aperture landscape and similar images on a full frame body then the 17-40 is probably your lens. Its image quality is at least equal to that of the 16-35 at smaller apertures used for this sort of photography on full frame.</li>

</ul>

<p>Compared to v.1 of the 16-35, the v.2 lens is apparently a slightly better performer in the corners at f/2.8, but not better at smaller apertures. It also requires a slightly non-standard 82mm diameter filter, while the v.1 lens uses the more typical 77mm thread diameter.</p>

<ul>

</ul>

<p>If you shot a cropped sensor body, I'd recommend the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS over either of these lenses in almost all situations.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>But is the 16-35 II any better?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. My first Canon lens was the 17-40/4. Owned it new for 4 years and was my workhorse from country to country. Then I replaced it with the 16-35/2.8 II last month. The corners are sharper with less CA's than the slower lens. What impressed the most was the pleasing circular bubble-like bokeh at f/2.8. It's a keeper.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I shoot a lot of interiors, so the faster lens is my choice. However, if you asked me to sort a stack of 100 8x10 photos, of an equal number taken with both a 17-40 and the 16-35 II, I would end up with three stacks; a small one for the 17-40, another small one for the 16-35 II, and a very large stack of undetermined.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Although comparisons across diferent formats always raise extra issues, it would be intereting to compare these two lenses on FF with the EF-S 10~22 on a high-pixel-count 1.6-factor body, best of all a 7D. Anyone care to contribute their thoughts? Published tests certainly suggest that the 10~22 has exceptionally good control of distortion (at least, for a zoom), and although DPP corrects distortion effectively, the less correction needed the better.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I stay away from EFS lenses only for two reasons. I still shoot some film and want to be able to use all my lenses on my film eos body. I also have dreams of a FF camera some day.</p>

[alexander_c1]

<p>I was torn between these two lenses. Read ALL online reviews and comparisons. I settled for the 17-40 and I am quite happy with it. I've done some amazing work with it.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I stay away from EFS lenses only for two reasons. I still shoot some film and want to be able to use all my lenses on my film eos body. I also have dreams of a FF camera some day.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The first of those reasons makes a lot of sense - if a lens can do double-duty, that can have some real value.</p>

<p>The second reason - at least if presented without the first one - might be less convincing. My feeling is that if one is <em>certain</em> to move to full frame <em>very soon</em> (a couple months, perhaps?) getting lenses specifically with that in mind makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, if one has a vague idea that one would like to <em>move to full-frame someday, maybe, if it works out</em>... it may not make sense to select lenses that are not as ideal for the photographs you are doing today.</p>

<p>(If you are worried about the investment... there is a very good chance that you'll end up keeping the cropped sensor gear as a second or backup body. If not, you can sell it and recover a good portion of your investment.)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Sheldon and others, thanks for one of the best discussions so far of this often-asked theme. Well done.</p>

<p>G Dan and I agree completely on the EF-S issue.</p>

<p>If there were not plenty of other evidence to support the idea, the 7D camera is a clear indication of Canon's commitment. The EF-S/APS-C format is not going away, and there will always be a market for good lenses.</p>

<p>There are good reasons for some people to go to 35mm format sensors, but Canon and other vendors now have full lines of lenses from ultrawides to long telephotos that work on APS-C cameras. I have and use both types, and the only penalty is a little strain on occasion from carrying around, say, both a APS-C format 10-20mm lens and a 35mm format 15-30mm lens.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Mark - I bought the 17-40 over the first 16-35 as the lenses I tested showed the 16-35 I was the same / inferior to the 17-40. I shot the 17-40 for about 4 years but i bought the 16-35 II when it came out and sold the 17-40 (for more than I paid!). On APS-C I would suggest that you just get the 17-40 as with a DSLR the extra stop is not a big deal and the IQ is about the same. On a film camera the extra stop is still worth quite a lot, on a full frame DSLR (5DII<em>) I found the 16-35 II to be sharper - especially at the edges. Is the 16-35 II worth twice the price? Probably not. Am I happy I made the change? - Yes. The only hassle I find with the 16-35 II is that you need to use Cokin Z or X series filters as P series vignettes badly.</em></p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>The only hassle I find with the 16-35 II is that you need to use Cokin Z or X series filters as P series vignettes badly.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use an 82mm Heliopan slim UV filter with front female threads. This allows the Canon plastic snap-on lens cap to attach. The filter does not contribute to the inherent vignetting at f/2.8 at 16mm.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[markonestudios]

I am one of those for whom the 17-40 has become a bread-and-butter lens. I started off with film and once I got to see how wide 17mm was compared to my humble 28mm, I was blown away. The sharpness in my 8x10 prints even at f/4 was simply superb. I now shoot crop & FF dSLR and the occasional roll of 400CN; I would not trade that lens for anything. I have great respect for the 16-35II but I would make the same choice (17-40) if faced with the decision today. Compact, light, top-notch build, superb optics.

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Mark, Have you looked at PZ and TDP?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Peter the filter issue with the 16-35 II is not with the slim screw on type (I think mine might cause about 1/2 of a stop vignette in the corners). The problem is when you want to use Lee / Cokin square filters such as ND grads etc... While you can buy ND and ND grad filters in an 82mm screw in I doubt you can get them all in a narrow filter and a full set will cost $1000+ While Cokin P offers an 82mm ring even the wide angle narrow holder vignettes badly so you have to go up to the much larger and more expensive 4 inch square filter systems. With UV / protection or my circular polarizer I use the narrow screw on type. If you never use ND grads etc... this is not an issue</p>

[markonestudios]

@Yakim: Yes, I spend almost inordinate amounts of time there, especially if looking to purchase a new lens :)

<p>Happily shooting ;-)

<br>Mark

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks for the insightful repsonses, guys. Since I typically shoot between 24mm and 200mm, the ultrawide range is not a priority for me. And, since the 17-40 is a very fine lens anyway, I think I'll just stick with it.</p>