Canon 16-35 in comparison to 17-40 ?

[nirvan_a]

<p>How is Canon 16-35 in comparison to 17-40 for doing landscapes ?</p>

[lumusphoto]

Both the 16-35 and 17-40 produce quite stunning detail and colour rendition. I've been shooting with the 17-40 for a few

months now and it still amazes me getting back to the computer and looking through the images taken with it. It does give

a fair but of distortion at the wide end but if you were using it on a cropped frame body there wouldn't be as much as an

issue to deal with. Both lenses need stopping down to really produce what they are capable of but I'd say if you really

need that f2.8 that the 16-35 offers then the 17-40 can't compete with it's constant f4.

 

What I will say is that on most occasions shooting landscape involved using a tripod so if you were predominantly

shooting this way then for me it's a no brainer, save the huge chunk of cash and opt for the 17-40.

 

I've got a really quick review over at lumusphoto . Com with example images if you want to have a look and a short video

review on my YouTube channel. Hope this helps you out. Final note I'd suggest maybe renting the lenses one at a time

and use them for a few days see how they feel to you back to back shooting your style.

[mark from thailand]

<p>I have been using the 16-35 for a few years now. It is great for travelling in cities and I have been very pleased with the results. I especially like the f/2.8 wide aperture for indoor shots.</p>

[mark from thailand]

<p>Some examples</p><div></div>

[mark from thailand]

<p>and another</p><div></div>

[peter_j2]

<p>Nirvan: I presume you are referring to the Canon EOS 16-35mm f/2.8L USM version 1? Stick with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. I waited for the Canon EOS 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM and the newest version is better for full frame DSLR's.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>The sharpness on the 16-35 Mk I and 17-40 is about the same with the 17-40 coming in a little sharper, but the color rendition on 16-35 is much better plus you get on extra stop and one extra notch on the wide end. I used both lenses and I would say that I prefer 16-35, but not by much. The 16-35mm Mk II is supposed to be a better lens, but I have not tried it out yet. Unfortunately, it is a lot more expensive than the prior two !</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>but the color rendition on 16-35 is much better</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Examples?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>much better</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am never sure what this means. Do you mean more "accurate" - or more colorful/vibrant/different color balance to lens x etc. etc.? Statements about color rendition are commonly stated, but I don't know really what they mean.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I am never sure what this means.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I'm not sure either. For example, I took this with the 17-40 last weekend. What would using the 16-35 change about it?<br /> </p>

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/rtsf2.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></center>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I have used both lenses and really can't tell the difference. I opted for the Canon 17-40 F4L and in my opinion this is the perfect lens for landscapes and the color rendition is about as perfect as you can get.<br>

Also, the horizontal and vertical lines are also perfect. When I used the Canon 24-105 the horizons where bowed upward at 24mm instead of being perfectly flat like the 17-40. My goto lens is the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC but I would say the Canon 17-40 F4L is better for both HD video, landscapes and shooting interiors. I don't shoot any of those items at F2.8 so the 17-40 is just perfect and the price is right for an L-series lens.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Maybe I should have said "much better, in my opinion(compared to my other L series lenses) " .</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Harry, my beef is I have no idea what "better" means in this context. People often say such things but what actually do they mean? The qualifier doesn't help as I don't know really what you mean - better accuracy (how could you tell?), warmer/cooler, more saturated etc etc? </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>Harry, my beef is I have no idea what "better" means in this context</em>"<br>

it's really hard to explain, your really have to experience it. You ever read the reviews on some Carl Zeiss lenses such as the "Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Macro-Planar ZE". The owners of these lenses say the color-rendition on this lens is astronomical, or the color is out of this world. Maybe they mean the color is "richer" I don't know ? </p>

[dave404]

<p>I have tried the 17-40 and one big thing I like is how light it is compared to my normal walk around lens, the 24-70 f2.8L. I hike with that lens often but I think I need something wider for landscapes and also a lot lighter. The 16-35 is about half a pound heavier that the 17-40 , but after a long hike like my 23 mile hike in Harriman last weekend you notice it. For days afterwards you notice. For that hike I opted to take my little G12 instead, because of the weight and of course I got surprised a horizon to horizon rainbow at the end that the G12 did a so so job on. I am always disappointed when I opt to not bring the heavy camera gear. So the 17-40 will be in the bag in the future.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>The 16-35mm is not heavy at all, in my opinion. I use it as a walk around lens with my cropped camera to get a little more reach. I guess it can be considered heavy compared to the 17-40 though. Don't get me wrong, the 17-40 is a very good lens for the price. When it first came out there were raving about this lens unlike the 16-35 that got low grades. So I waited for something else to come out. I waited and waited until the 16-35 mk II came out and the MK 1 was selling for cheap on the used market so I got it. I sent it in to Canon for a CLA and when I got it back, I was astounded by the rich colors in close quarters. It is definitely one of my favorite lenses. </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>How is Canon 16-35 in comparison to 17-40 <em><strong>for doing landscapes ?</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I truly doubt that not even 1 in 1000 photographers could tell the difference in an A/B Comparison of any two identical Landscape Images shot with the two lenses, if both the originals were properly exposed and then well post produced. </p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>For landscapes both lenses are about equal with the 17-40 a tad sharper, indoors and in close quarters is where the 16-35mm really shines.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>indoors and in close quarters is where the 16-35mm really shines.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Can you give some examples comparing the two lenses in the same situation that will show the "shine." Thanks.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Is it something intangible such as "Leica glow"?</p>

<p>Can we quantify it?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p> color-rendition on this lens is astronomical, or the color is out of this world</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Harry, oh yes I have indeed read such reviews and I don't know what they mean either. People seem to add things like that when they have paid a lot of money for things. I am not a totally "numbers is everything" person: for example I can see that one can argue for centuries over what has the best bokeh, but color rendition?</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I went with the 17-40 F4L for event photography because in close quarters this is in range of my 580 EX II flash. I needed F2.8 for my 70-200 obviously because flash can't reach as far as the lens. I agree with others I really don't believe anyone could tell the differences in these two lenses other than in a low light situation shot without flash or tripod. For Landscape work shot at F8 and a tripod both at 17mm I am quite certain you would not be able to tell the difference.<br>

When I compare the 85 1.2L to my Tamron 70-300 VC F4-5.6 at F8 and 85mm you can tell a big difference. To quantify, the Canon 85 1.2L the colors look like an oil painting and the background blur is so soft it looks like colored cotton. However, the Tamron although I like it the colors look pastel and the image is sometimes too sharp making a cartoon like effect. The 85 1.2 L too me looks more like film where it is not so much contrast. Tamron looks digital sharp crisp and sterile. However, for me I prefer the Tamron. When it takes a picture of someones eyes it is so real it is scary.</p>