EF 17-40 L vs. the EF 16-35 L

[jonmichael]

<p>Thinking about getting either the Canon EF 17-40 L or the EF 16-35 L. Will also be getting a 5d or 5d II. What are the major differences I need to know about the two lenses. I primarily will be using them for landscape. I'm not sure why the 16-35 is so much more than the 17-40? But, I see all the top landscape photographers are switching to the 16-35. <br>

Any advice and info would be very helpful. </p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>J-M</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If your concept of landscape is largely stopped down tripod based shooting then there is probably little or no advantage in spending the extra money for the 16-35. Given this type of photography, reasons to get the 17-40 include:</p>

<ul>

<li>The focal length range of the 17-40 is larger.</li>

<li>The cost is lower.</li>

<li>The weight/size is smaller.</li>

<li>The performance at the apertures you'll use is roughly equivalent or arguably slightly (but not in a significant way) better.</li>

<li>The filter diameter is 77mm, which is a common size for many core Canon L zooms. (The 16-35 uses 82mm.)</li>

</ul>

<p>The primary advantage of the excellent 16-35 is for shooting low light hand held ultra wide stuff at the largest apertures.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>The primary advantage of the excellent 16-35 is for shooting low light hand held ultra wide stuff at the largest aperture</em>s.</p>

<p>As well as a noticably brighter viewfinder and the AF loves the light the faster lenses deliver. I cannot even *imagine* the weight diff's between these two lenses as anything meaningful.</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>Where do you see "all the top landscape photographers" switching to the 16-35?</p>

<p>The 16-35 is an f2.8, the 17-40 is f4. That's the main reason it's so much more expensive.</p>

<p>The 17-40 has a great reputation for image quality and is considerably lighter and smaller than the 16-35. Of course if a roughly 5% greater angle of view and the extra stop are critical then the 16 is the way to go. But if not there's no reason in my experience with the two lenses to pay the extra money for the 16-35 because you won't be gaining anything other than those two things and you'll be adding a fair amount of extra weight and bulk.</p>

[steven_crist]

<p>I use the 17-40 primarily as an outdoor lens so the f4 is not a problem. It provides excellent quality and when you consider the price it's a steal. Comparing the 17-40 to the 16-35mkI the 17-40 historically tested better. Various comparisons are available - simply goggle them. The newer 16-35mkII is the best of the three (though over twice the price of the 17-40).</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>the 16-35 is more b/c its a f/2.8 vs f/4. Other than that, I doubt you'll notice much difference. I own the 17-40mm f/4L and shoot mostly landscapes with it. Since the majority of landscapes are shot at f/8-11, the moderately slow f/4 aperture has no negative effect with me. If you shoot weddings or indoors a lot, the 16-35mm f/2.8L may be necessary, otherwise I would get the 17-40mm at the cheaper price.</p>

[zml]

<p>In terms of contrast and color rendition the 16-35 II wins hands down over the 17-40 and 16-35 Mk. I, and that you might notice :-)</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>I went from the 17-40/4 to the 16-35/2.8 II. The latter is sharper. The f/2.8 helps. Less C.A.'s with the latter also. For landscaping, it doesn't matter which one you choose.</p>

<p>Just get the 5D for $800.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'm not being cranky, or at least no more than usual; but this has to be near the top for FAQs. Look here on this site for "16-35mm +17-40mm" and you will find out that this has been discussed a LOT.<br>

If you get the older 5D it may be handy to have the extra aperture opening, otherwise, if you're not afraid of a little noise, ISO settings can do a great deal to equalize the situation on a mark ii.</p>

<p>Fairly technical reviews of both on 35mm sensor cameras can be found at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/all-tests">Photozone.de</a></p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>G Dan, you make a lot of good points, just not sure I agree with this one:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The focal length range of the 17-40 is larger</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The difference in focal length range is, well: shifted. 16mm to 17mm is at least as significant as 35mm to 40mm, focal length values being logarithmic.</p>

<p>FWIW, I chose the 17-40, for the price, weight/dimensions, filter size.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Mendel mentioned the one additional point I wanted to make :) - filter size. The 16-35 II has an 82mm filer size which can be a bit of a pain when looking for filters. The 17-40 has a more easily available 77mm filter size. For landscape work, it's quite likely you will need some filters... CPL, NDs, etc.</p>

<p>FWIW, I think the 17-40L is a superb lens for landscape work. For a long time it was my main lens on my APS-C camera and now also sees a lot of action when I'm doing wedding photography...</p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>If you shoot primarily landscapes where the Av is usually stopped down, a 17-40L is very good and is more than adequate. You gain the extra light stop with the 16-35L. While I think this is a good lens, in terms of your type of photography, it is not more than 2X as good considering the hefty premium price.</p>

<p>Oh the other end of the scale, Canon's EFS 18-55 IS kit lens is not bad too. The IS will net you 2-3 stops of light. However you don't get the same DOF as the above lens. Being a kit lens, the price is very affordable. Bang for the buck lens to me.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Of course, no EF-S kit lens will work on either a 5D or a 5D mkii.</p>

<p>There is an alternative here if you want really wide angle and that is one of the ultrawides for "full-frame" cameras like the Sigma 12-24mm lens, or its immediate predecessor (still available on eBay as a used lens), the Sigma 15-30mm lens.<br /> The latter lens has a big advantage over the Canon lenses -- you won't need to worry about what filter size will work on it. <strong><em>No</em></strong> filter will fit on it -- because of a long-projecting front lens element. ;)<br /> Actually, the Sigmas are very nice lenses, although perhaps not best for architectural photography.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I always like to make people aware of the Canon 17-35/2.8 L available used. This was the predecessor to the 16-35 I. It offers similar performance to the 16-35/2.8 L at the price of the 17-40/4 L.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Ken wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>As well as a noticably brighter viewfinder and the AF loves the light the faster lenses deliver. I cannot even *imagine* the weight diff's between these two lenses as anything meaningful.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If a one-stop brighter viewfinder is worth the cost, then OK. In my view, it isn't that much brighter,a and I don't find it an issue at all <em>for landscape photography</em>, which is what the OP asked about.<br>

Weight/bulk may or may not be an issue for everyone. However, many landscape photographers - and I'm one of them - carry a range of gear on our backs, sometimes along with full backpacks of camping equipment and often into difficult terrain. In this case, the weight and bulk of each piece of gear is significant, and we won't carry anything extra that doesn't provide extra value for what we do.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jonmichael]

<p>Thanks everyone. Right now I'm thinking the differences between the two are not significant enough for me to invest the extra buck. </p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I really think it's important to differentiate between the 16-35mm f2.8L Mk I and Mk II when making comparisons to the 17-40mm f4L.</p>

<p>The Mk I was really very similar in performance to the 17-40mm in that it was not a great performer at the wider apertures, but very good when stopped down to f8 - f11. Some people actually rated the 17-40mm higher optically, but I couldn't see any difference other than the extra stop and a big difference in price.</p>

<p>The Mk II is a much better lens and it's performance at the wider apertures (esp. edge sharpness) justifies the price difference if that's what you're looking for. It's still not going to be much (if at all) better than the 17-40mm when well stopped down, but you do get the marginally brighter viewfinder and better AF. Whether or not it's worth the extra money depends how much time you spend shooting at wide apertures.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>The Mk II is a much better lens and it's performance at the wider apertures (esp. edge sharpness) justifies the price difference if that's what you're looking for. It's still not going to be much (if at all) better than the 17-40mm when well stopped down, but you do get the marginally brighter viewfinder and better AF.</em> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two points.</p>

<p>First, the "extra goodness" of the v. II 16-35 compared to the v. I <em>is</em> at f/2.8 from all reports. Better performance by a bit in the corners at f/2.8. Pretty much end of story. A fine lens? Yes. A phenomenally better lens than the older version? Not so sure.</p>

<p>Second, the OP asked specifically about shooting landscape. Unless the OP has an unusual approach to shooting landscape (possible, I know - but not too likely) the f/2.8 aperture isn't going to see a lot of use.</p>

<p>Nothing against the 6-35 f/2.8. It is, by all reports, a very fine lens if you need the special features it provides - and this is mainly a bit better performance than the older version at f/2.8 and better large aperture performance than the 17-40. </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>G Dan and John</p>

<p>I used to have the 17-40 F4 which I bought over the MkI 16-35 F2.8 as I was not impressed by the F2.8 lens. When the 16-35 F2.8 II came out I replaced my 17-40 F4 with the 16-35 F2.8 II. I did this because the F2.8 lens is sharper - especially at the edges, at wider wpertures and at the wide end. The F2.8 lens is at its best at the 16mm end of it's range - it is softer at the 35mm end. If you shoot full frame, want the extra sharpness and wide angle of the F2.8 lens then it is worth the extra. On APS-C I doubt if you can see much difference and in terms of value for money the F4 lens is the better buy. It really depends what you want. The F2.8 MkII is a better lens, is it worth twice as much - only you can decide. My 17 F4l TS is even sharper but this costs 3x as much as the 17-40 F4 - that said I still love it and can justify it's cost. Remember unlike bodies the lenses (at this quality level) do not really depreciate. My FD 85 F1.2 will sell for about what it cost me in 1984! Similarly I think I can get more for my 70-200 F2.8 non IS than I paid for it 6-7 years ago!. Whichever lens you buy you will not lose out. The 82mm filter is a pain - especially if you use Cokin or similar. You have to use 4 inch filters (Cokin Z or X, Lee etc...) - if you have them this is not a big deal but if you have to buy them the filters and holders are much more expensive than the P series and you may end up spending $200+ on filters in addition to the lens price.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Philip - this is exactly what I did. After side by side comparisons, I passed on the 16-35mm Mk I and bought the 17-40mm f4. Even though I found it to be a pretty poor performer wide open, it is extremely good at f8 and f11. When the 16-35mm f2.8L Mk II came out, it was significantly better down to f5.6 or so and I bought the MK II version. I still have the 17-40mm which I keep for back up / redundancy. As stated in my previous post, there is not much, if anything, to choose between the 16-35mm Mk II and the 17-40mm when they are stopped down a bit more. One other thing, the extra 1mm in focal length makes more difference than you might think.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Some very sensible advice here from a number of experienced regular contributors to the forum.</p>

<p>I have had the 17~40 since it was introduced, and used it on film, 1.6-factor (for which there are now much better choices) and FF digital (5D and now 5DII). If you are new to FF it is certaibly the lens to start with. If you find tou are OK with it stopped down but need the extra speed or are unhappy with it wide open, replace it with the 16~35 II; you'll have no difficulty in selling a clean 17~40 for a good price. If you are dissatisfied with it stopped down, then the consensus of those who have used both lenses (doesn't include me, I have not used the 16~35 II) is that changing to the 16~35 won't offer much benefit. You will need to look at other alternatives, such as the TS17 or TS24II.</p>

<p>In any event, don't underestimate the impact of what can seem like quite small differences in size and weight, both for carrying stuff in your bag and for packing up for air travel.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I want to share a slightly contrarian viewpoint on the 17-40 on a cropped sensor camera. I know the OP asked about FF, but the issue of use on crop has come up since then.</p>

<p>I used the 17-40 on crop for a few years before using it on FF. It was great in the center but not so outstanding in the corners. Keep in mind that the strengths of this lens in optical terms are fine performance in the center of the frame at all apertures and fine performance across the frame when stopped down. Its main weakness, at least in my experience, is in corner performance at the larger apertures. (Though I think that the <em>perception</em> of poor corner performance is <em>sometimes</em> amplified by people who forget that with its very wide angles that they are often dealing with much closer subjects at the lower edge of the frame.)</p>

<p>Here's the rub with crop cameras and this lens, at least based on my experience. You can stop down and improve corner performance... but you don't want to stop down too much on a cropped sensor camera if you are at all concerned about the effects of diffraction. And if you shoot landscape there is a very good chance that you are concerned about maintaining maximum resolution. On a cropped sensor body, you arguably want to avoid stopped down much past f/8 if diffraction blur is a concern. That leaves with very few great apertures to shoot at on this lens. You will, in my experience, have some soft corner issues with the lens at f/4. I often found that even at f/8 I had to thin about this. (If you use it to shoot subjects in which corner sharpness is far less important this won't be an issue. Believe it or not, I had some success with it as a street photography lens!)</p>

<p>A far better option for covering this focal length range on crop is the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. It isn't an L lens, but so what? It is among a group of very fine non-L lenses. In fact, <em>on a cropped sensor camera</em>, I would argue that it is a better option than either the 16-35mm f/2.8 L or the 17-40 f/4 L. It offers:</p>

<ul>

<li>Excellent image quality that at least equals the other two lenses on cropped sensor bodies.</li>

<li>Larger focal length range.</li>

<li>Lower cost than the 16-35.</li>

<li>f/2.8 aperture</li>

<li>Image stabilization</li>

<li>Quite decent build quality.</li>

</ul>

<p>If it had a red ring and a letter "L" on it, few would choose the other two lenses for use on crop.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Dan that is probably a good point for crop users. I never owned the 17-40 F4 and 7D at the same time but I suspect that the pair have very limited sharp aperture options. The 7D shows clear diffraction at F16 (the digital picture suggests it starts at F6.8) so if you find F4 and F5.6 have soft edges (this was the case with mine and John says the same) then you are only left with F8 and F11 (as full stops). On APS-C the 17-40 edges may be acceptably sharp at F5.6 - I never used mine on an APS-C body - just full frame and APS-H. The digital picture test tool does show the 17-55 has sharper edges at F5.6 than the 17-40</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2</p>