Canon 16-35 or 17-40

[dod]

I've missed the 17-40 since ever I sold it

Only question I've got is has anyone used both the 16-35 and 17-40 and if so which did you prefer? Not too worried about F2.8 for this (it'll either be stopped down or used with flash) and reviews don't really seem conclusive, so is the 16-35 actually worth the extra money?

 

[dazzajl]

so is the 16-35 actually worth the extra money?

I didn't think so. It's a great lens but unless you need the extra stop or extra mm (well it can make a difference ) on the wide end the 17-40 is probably a better bet, pound for pound.

We all know the 17-40 can be a little soft at the 40 end but at least you've the option to use or not use that range.

 

[Les McLean]

Yes, (I think) , but it depends what you use it for, I have the 17-35 F2.8L, only because I picked up a copy for the same price as I sold my 17-40 F4L.

If you shoot in relatively low light, the f2.8 lens means it locks onto focus better, and focusses quicker.
Obviously it's brighter in the viewfinder also.

Image quality, I couldn't see any difference.

As the 16-35 f2.8 MKII is out, the secondhand prices of the 16-35mm f2.8 MK1 are starting to come down.

 

[Joe T]

dod, are you buying and selling the same lenses again? Like you did with the 50mm 1.8????

 

[dod]

Shhhh, they might not notice And I've still got the 50mm, for now

 

[grumpybadger]

I tested a 16-35 and a 17-40 back to back in the shop and (at the same aperture) the 17-40 was significantly sharper. I walked out the shop with that one and some spare cash.

The new 16-35 II may be much better but I can't comment as I don't have one and haven't tested one...

 

[Sharkey]

Dod I've had the 16-35 mkII now for 3/4 months and its predessesor before that. I looked very hard at the 17/40 but found it (2 month trial) slower to grab a focus and with a 1.3 x factor just not wide enough at times. That may not be the case on your 5. I've had a few days shooting (mucking about - no posts) on the 1ds mkII and am completely 'in love'. It may be the 17/40 would be OK on ff but it still imo not have the IQ of the 16/35.. With reference to the 16/35 mkI the mkII is again imo (no pixel peeping) noticeable sharper at the edges and a quicker performer to focus. The colours - seem - more alive also.
Finally the 2.8 is really relevant as close up and personal it still gives excellent dof (great for the bikes near your ears shots)

 

[dod]

well the toys account doesn't stretch to the MkII at the moment so that rules that out

The rest of the thread just confirms the reviews, absolutely mixed

It's actually a 1D MkII and a 20D I'm sitting with Sharkey, the 17-40 was more than wide enough for me even on the 20D. Still not sure

 

[dod]

right, 17-40 ordered. not convinced about the difference in IQ and having used one before I think it's adequate for what I need.




















I can always sell it if it's not :embarrassed:

 

[busterboy]

Having owned both and still own the 16-35mm I would choose the 16-35..

Don't know about image quality but I'm sure the 16-35 produces sharper pictures..

Again everyone has different opinions..