Canon 16-35L or 17-40L ?

roadeh

roadeh

Suspended / Banned
Messages
137
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

Done a search for surprisingly not found that many related threads. A friend of mine is semi pro and wants to buy a wide lens for his 5d mk2.. He does a lot of events so the 2.8 aperture is really appealing, but comparing the images side by side shows that the 17-40 seems to be a lot sharper at f5.6 onwards..

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

I'm really surprised by this given the 17-40 is half the price.. and whilst the 17-40 has worse barrel distortion and vignetting, the 16-35 is apparently worse for CA.. and I know which I'd rather fix in Photoshop!

What do you guys think?

Cheers,

Ben
 
I dont think the 16-35 is worth the money, considering the 17-40 is a fine lens.
 
Unless the extra stop and a drop of extra wideness is absolutely necessary, I would save yourself a lot of cash and buy the 17-40... CA is bad at the wide end low down at f/4, but once you zoom in a tad it goes away. It also has quite bad barrel distortion at the wide end but in most practical circumstances I don't notice it. F/4 lenses are inherently better at dealing with flare than f/2.8 lenses as well, and this shows with the 17-40 vs the 16-35.

If I was given the choice now, I don't even think I'd trade my 17-40 for a 16-35 - i like the fact that it zooms up to 40 because it can be used for "standard" shots at that focal length. It also makes a rather nice closeup lens.
 
I would always go for the faster lens if there is an option. That extra stop of light can come in very handy!
 
I don't trust the-digital-picture.com for wide-angle lens tests. They shoot a flat test chart at too close a distance - they admit as much in the small print of their procedure. Excellent tests for longer lenses though, which don't suffer field curvature nearly as much and are tested at a greater distance.

The only problem with the 16-35L is that the 17-40L is so good and a heck of a lot cheaper. You have to want f/2.8 badly.
 
I had the same problem and in the end pushed the boat out with the 16-35mm 2.8. Yes 2.8 is more but as we all know, its a very nice to have.
 
It depends if your friend needs the f/2.8 really. It's a lot of extra money, and if it's going to be stopped down, or used with flash, then the 17-40 would make more sense. If you need f/2.8 however, it doesn't matter which has more CA or distortion, as only 1 lens will get the shot, the other a blurry mess :)
 
chris321 said:
It depends if your friend needs the f/2.8 really. It's a lot of extra money, and if it's going to be stopped down, or used with flash, then the 17-40 would make more sense. If you need f/2.8 however, it doesn't matter which has more CA or distortion, as only 1 lens will get the shot, the other a blurry mess :)
Click to expand...


I second that emotion :D


Cheers

a010.gif


H
a035.gif
 
it's pretty well known the 17-40 is a better lens then the16-35 particularly in the corners. the mk2 version is much better though but a lot more cash. the 17-40 does not score that great in reviews when attached to the 5D2 though.
 
POAH said:
it's pretty well known the 17-40 is a better lens then the16-35 particularly in the corners. the mk2 version is much better though but a lot more cash. the 17-40 does not score that great in reviews when attached to the 5D2 though.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is much to choose between the 17-40L and the 16-35L MkII (not to be confused with the frankly rather poor MkI). They are both extremely good. You could argue it either way. Sharpness about equal, and very high in both. A bit less flare in the 17-40 but less vignetting with the 16-35. The big difference is really that extra stop of the 16-35, for which you pay a very hefty premium.

Not sure what you mean about the 17-40L not being great on a 5D2 :thinking: The two might have been made for each other. In terms of sharpness, there is no better super-wide available this side of an L-grade prime.
 
Hi guys,

Sorry for the slow reply but thanks for your thoughts - he's actually gone for the 16-35 just because of the fact that he does events and having the extra stop can make the difference.. having said that if I ever go FF, I think I'll be sticking with the 17-40 ;)

Cheers,

Ben
 
a good choice well made :thumbs:

I am sure he will get a lot of use from it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top