16-35mm L or the 17-40mm L

[whatsthatbeeping]

Going to full frame is frightening the Shiites out of me!!

I'm having to look at ditching my fav lens (EF-s 10-22mm) in my bag for "hopefully" an upgrade to a "L" series equivalent for the full frame 5d mII.

Has anyone gone through the similar process?
What lens did you end up settling on? the 16-35 or the 17-40?

My biggest fear is that if I choose the cheaper 17-40mm that the optics will be less than the 10-22mm. To avoid this I'm leading towards the "twice the price" 16-35L because of this reason.

With the 17-40, I wouldn't miss the 1mm difference at the wide end, nor the faster f stop compared to the 16-35 but I'm not willing to compromise any image quality compared to my beloved 10-22mm ef-s (which is similar in price to the 17-40mm L)

is the $800 difference really noticeable in the image quality when shooting above f/4 on between these lenses?

Another pro for the 17-40mm is there will be no need to get new filters, as I can't imagine how expensive a ND Grad filter set or slim UV would be for the 16-35mm let alone a 400 ND

Anyone had any real world experience for the dilemma I'm going through?

Your thoughts on choice?

Cheers

Tim

[jjphoto]

Which 16-35 are you talking about as there are 2. The first version uses the same filter size as the 10-22 and 17-40 so I assume you mean the 16-35 II with the 82mm filter.

I've never used the latest 16-35 so I can't comment but I have the 10-22 and 17-40 and I find the 17-40 to be a much better lens than the 10-22. The 10-22 is average at best, although I know plenty of people like it, and I've found mine to be barely adequate and my current copy is much better than my first copy. The 17-40 is much sharper at every aperture.

The 17-40 is almost as good (sharp) as most of the wide angle primes on the market and it's main optical failing is that it tends to drop off in sharpness outside the central area but you'll probably not even notice this is normal use. The 17-40 is an excellent lens.

A couple of examples at close range;

Leica R 24/2.8 at F4 (100% crop)
http://rigshots.com.au/images/24/L24/C/IMG_1835_L24_4.jpg

Canon 17-40/4 L at F4 (100% crop)
http://rigshots.com.au/images/24/EF17_40/C/s/IMG_1852_EF1740_4.jpg

A couple of examples at Infinity;

Leica R 24/2.8 at F4 (100% crop)
http://rigshots.com.au/images/24/L24/C/IMG_1891_L24_4.jpg

Canon 17-40/4 L at F4 (100% crop)
http://rigshots.com.au/images/24/EF17_40/C/s/IMG_1898_EF1740_4.jpg

The Leica R 24 is a very nice lens and the 17-40 is only slightly behind it in centre sharpness. This is much better than you'd expect from the 10-22!

JJ

[JM Tran]

with the abundance of tests of the 17-40 L on full frame and on APSC sensors, the 17-40 is one of the least impressive L lenses in the Canon line up atm, on full frame that is, very very soft and mushy on the borders as it loses the details a lot.

you can see lab results at www.photozone.de

so yes, there is a big difference between the 2, and if anyway disagrees, they should use both lenses and print out some big enlargements like I did to see a difference, or go check out internet comparisons.

[Analog6]

Go with the 16-35. I had that lens when I shot with Canon and is superb, well worth the price. I bought mine used via the forum, a member knew of one in his home town and I got a very good price for an absolutely A1 MkII version. You will not regret going full frame and getting this lens. For 35mm landscape and other wide angle genres I think it is definitely up near the top of the pile in quality and clarity (I haven't tried other brands, but they'd go hard to beat it).

[Bally]

I have the the 17 40 and wish I had saved for the 16 35II

Cheers

[DAdeGroot]

While the 17-40L is a definite improvement over the 10-20, I'll echo the above sentiments and say the 16-35L II is better. Not much in it at the long end, with the 17-40 possibly edging out the 16-35 there, but at the wide end the 16-35 wins hands down on corner and side sharpness. I have used both (and own the cheaper 17-40). Planning on replacing the 17-40 this year with a 17 TSE and 35/1.4L.

[terry.langham]

Hey Dave, is the edge sharpness on the 17-40 an issue at all apertures or only wide open? Looking to get this lens but will rarely use it at anything wider then f/8.

[JM Tran]

Hey Dave, is the edge sharpness on the 17-40 an issue at all apertures or only wide open? Looking to get this lens but will rarely use it at anything wider then f/8.

only if u plan to use it for a lot of landscape stuff where sharpness across the whole range is needed. The 17-40 on the extreme borders at heavily detailed scenes such as trees and foilage in a forest for example - the lens cannot resolve enough details, especially on high MP sensors such as the 5D2 - and the details will end up looking mushy when one zooms in, or prints large. This is even when you stop down to F8 and F11 not just wide open at F4.

I have used the 17-40 before for fashion stuff and its centre sharpness is fine and great, as I had no care nor need for corner performance.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Another advantage of the 16-35mm is that it goes open to F2.8
If you plan on doing night exposures with frozen stars in mind, this again gives you more versatility over the 17-40 (over and above the reasons mentioned)
Most of the landscapes I take with the 16-35 are not suprisingly at 16mm as well , so being used to it, that extra 1mm might make a difference especially in edge resolution for landscapes.

[fabian628]

I used to use the 10-22 which was a good lens. I also got the 17-40 when I had no crop body anymore. The lens is hsarp in the centre, I dont really know if the edges are that bad, but I dare say the higher quality prime lenses are going to be better.
For my uses the 17-40 has done well enough. It is quite a cheap lens too, only $600 second hand, for a weather sealed L lens :)

[KeeFy]

+1 16-35.

[Perfectoarts]

Well I have the 16-35mm L lens and use it on my full frame camera. Never had one disappointing shot yet.
I have a 7D body as well, but it seems to in the dehumidifying cabinet most of the times (shame on me) so I cannot advise you on a crop factor camera with this lens.

[mistletoe]

I went from a sigma 10 - 20 mm, very similar to the canon 10 - 22, on a crop to the 17 - 40 on a full frame ... and I've noticed a substantial difference in sharpness and colour reproduction. Im very happy with my new lens.

Having said that, I'm pretty jealous of some of the photos taken on crops with the sigma by other people. Its how you use the lens that counts I suppose.

When I'm choosing a new piece of equipment I tend to go to flickriver and select groups that use that equipment to see if I like the results.

I can't really see a massive difference in quality between 16-35mm and 17-40mm. There are fantastic quality photos being taken with both.

So, if you are in a position to afford either I wouldn't worry that much. You're in a win win situation.

[pmack]

I've got the 10-22 and a 7D. I'm getting a 5D soon also, and plan on selling the 10-22, and buying the 17-40.
The cost, weight and other disadvantages of the 16-35 overpowered it's advantages to me, however this is purely from my research and personal opinions and needs.
Though this was not an easy decision as there were a lot of pros and cons, and it was probably the filter size issue that tipped the scales for me in favour of the 17-40.
Having said that, i have not bought it yet so may still change my mind. A few concerning posts in this thread regarding 17-40 corner sharpness, so i'll do a little more research.

[jjphoto]

... A few concerning posts in this thread regarding 17-40 corner sharpness, so i'll do a little more research.

You probably need to consider the way YOU intend to use the lens more than anything as this will really determine which qualities you need in a lens. I have lots of lenses that are not extremeley sharp in the corners and it doesn't matter to me at all, it can even be an advantage, however if you are shooting landscapes (or similar) then you might need corner to corner sharpness. But then again you should probably be looking at primes if that was the most important consideration.

Decide what you need and how much you are willing to pay for it or how you are willing to compromise.

JJ

[Tricky]

Interesting thread and debate - how to adequately replace my 10-22 is certainly my biggest concern in weighing up a move to full frame...

[pmack]

You probably need to consider the way YOU intend to use the lens more than anything as this will really determine which qualities you need in a lens. I have lots of lenses that are not extremeley sharp in the corners and it doesn't matter to me at all, it can even be an advantage, however if you are shooting landscapes (or similar) then you might need corner to corner sharpness. But then again you should probably be looking at primes if that was the most important consideration.

Decide what you need and how much you are willing to pay for it or how you are willing to compromise.

JJ

true words, however I have heard a lot of people reccomend the 17-40 for landscapes.
I compared the lenses here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
the 16-35 definetely has an improvementt on corner sharpness when both lenses compared at f/4 (obviously the 16-35 is stopped down here), but the centers look comparable, with more mid range chromatic abberation on the 17-40.
But with both lenses at f/8, there's not a whole lot it it IMO, and you are more likely to be shooting landscapes around there rather than wide open

[whatsthatbeeping]

I've been doing some more research and came across this review luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml (17-40 mm v 16-35 mm.shtml) which showed some pros and cons for both lenses under different shooting situations. I'm still unsure atm but tending to lean towards the 17-40mm OR a 24-105mm L as a completely different slant.

Still undecided!!

[Xenedis]

I personally went for the 16-35/2.8L II.

I wanted the extra width (the difference between 16mm and 17mm doesn't sound like much on paper, but it is noticeable in images, and even 16mm isn't wide enough sometimes).

The brighter f/2.8 aperture also helps with AF, and can be used creatively in some situations.

I have used this lens for a band shoot (in low and variable lighting), but I generally only use my fastest primes (34/1.4L, 85/1.2L II and 135/2L) for that type of shoot.

[KeeFy]

whats that: Do note the 16-35 is the older gen mk1. Not 16-35 mk2. Which ever your choice is, you definitely will enjoy a new lens just like a little boy/girl at christmas. :D Keep that finger trigger happy mate.

[Captured frame]

Have used the 17-40L for quite a while now on 5D ,5DII and 1DIIn - has performed very well ,I have not had much of a problem with edge sharpness/softness ,maybe I have an extra sharp one,have used the 16-35L II and it is a very good lens,if I needed 2.8 I might change but I don`t so I coulld not see enough of a difference to make me change.The 17-40L is a very fine lens for landscapes.

[selaw]

I will have a 17-40L f4 heading my way soon. I have read a lot more good reports than bad. Plan to use mostly to replace the 18-55 kit lens. Being EF is also handy for the 1D and will enable me to make better use of the 'brick' body. Having said all that if I could honestly afford the 16-35L f2.8 I wouldn't hesitate in buying it. Just a matter of getting what I believe is the best I can afford at the moment. As I hope to mainly use it as a landscape lens, I don't think I will miss the faster f-stop. Topped off with the 1D's documented low light ISO excellence, should add further value to the 17-40L f4.

Really looking forward to playing with it on both the 1D & 350D and posting results for comparison :)

[Arg]

....I have the 10-22 and 17-40 and I find the 17-40 to be a much better lens than the 10-22. The 10-22 is average at best, although I know plenty of people like it, and I've found mine to be barely adequate and my current copy is much better than my first copy. The 17-40 is much sharper at every aperture.

....The Leica R 24 is a very nice lens and the 17-40 is only slightly behind it in centre sharpness. This is much better than you'd expect from the 10-22!



While the 17-40L is a definite improvement over the 10-20, ....

Must be a few 10-22's in members' hands that are out of alignment, because generically it is absolutely as good as the ultrawide L's optically. In fact it is sharper wide open on an APS-C camera than both the L's on full frame cameras.

The 17-40 is actually a bit sharper than the 16-35, but they are all very good lenses. Get whichever one suits your budget, and for critical applications stop them down a stop or so and you will not lose quality against that mighty 10-22 of yours.

[pmack]

Must be a few 10-22's in members' hands that are out of alignment, because generically it is absolutely as good as the ultrawide L's optically. In fact it is sharper wide open on an APS-C camera than both the L's on full frame cameras.


I'd say it's more likely the placebo sort of effect that an 'L' lens with a red ring can create.
But if the posters have images to show their observations, i'd be interested.

[AdamR]

The 16-35 kills the 17-40 at f2.8..... And probably at f4 too. But who often uses a wide at either aperture. I use the 17-40 and when I purchased it I had the money to go either way and no hesitation not to spend. I chose the 17-40 because it fulfils my needs. At f8 it is tack sharp. Lots of people whinge and whine about lack of sharpness in wides and most often its people who dont use them or dont know how to use them. I use the 180L a lot and so have a very good comparison of what an ideal sharp lens should be and the 17-40 when I use it works great. As to whether its better than your lens. Not sure I had both but at the time of owning the 10-22mm I was one of the people who thought they knew how to use it but didnt. My brother gets great shots. I immediately notice colour rendition upon the change though and I know the 1ds meters and replicates colours beautifully which may pursuay my thoughts but to anyone who can use a wide there is nothing wrong with the 17-40. Just read magazines and look at what lens took what shots, youll find time and again 17-40 pops up way more often. Just like the 100-400 makes way more entries into photo comps than either comparable prime that people on these websites will tell you is way better.

[whatsthatbeeping]

Bit the bullet and purchased a used 17-40 on eBay this week for $670. so either way I think I'll be happy for the moment.
Hopefully the lens will turn up before I sell my 50D + 10-22mm kit so that I can do some side by side blind test shots for future reference when anyone's thinking of the same move to full frame.
If anyone is in brissy and has the 16-35 mII it would be interesting to do a comparison shoot out with the same subject matter to have a definitive test for comparison of all 3 lenses,

I'll keep you posted!

[JM Tran]

Must be a few 10-22's in members' hands that are out of alignment, because generically it is absolutely as good as the ultrawide L's optically. In fact it is sharper wide open on an APS-C camera than both the L's on full frame cameras.

The 17-40 is actually a bit sharper than the 16-35, but they are all very good lenses. Get whichever one suits your budget, and for critical applications stop them down a stop or so and you will not lose quality against that mighty 10-22 of yours.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1

[Digiphilic]

My 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is here from B+H Video! horay (I can't believe I ordered it on Sat night and it was here this morning but I wasn't home so it will be delivered tomorrow).
I was very happy with my 17-40mm on my 7D but it didn't quite give me the same sharpness with my 5D MkII...may be it's my aging eyes. I am not claiming I am a pro but I can tell the difference, plus I need a wider open lens for low light shoot hence the need for upgrade to 16-35mm f/2.8.
I'm also very happy to know my 17-40mm will be heading to a fellow forum member, it'a always nice to know something you had going to a good home. :)

[pmack]

My 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is here from B+H Video! horay (I can't believe I ordered it on Sat night and it was here this morning but I wasn't home so it will be delivered tomorrow).
I was very happy with my 17-40mm on my 7D but it didn't quite give me the same sharpness with my 5D MkII...may be it's my aging eyes. I am not claiming I am a pro but I can tell the difference,
That's not surprising, a 100% pixel comparison would only be equal if the 5D's resolution was maybe 50MP (at a guess, maybe even more). Remember the 7D is only using a part of the lens, so one pixel from the 7D see's a lot less glass than a pixel from the 5D

[KeeFy]

I think if based on pixel density it'll be about 47.5 Mpix based on a mental quick estimate.

[pmack]

I think if based on pixel density it'll be about 47.5 Mpix based on a mental quick estimate.

haha, was that a joke "mental quick estimate"?
The 7D sensor is 22.2x14.8mm=328.56mm^2
Pixels per mm^2=18million/328.56=54784
FF sensor is 36x24=864mm^2
Same pixel density on fullframe gives 864*54784=47.3MP
Did you round up to the nearest 0.5 in your head? :p

[KeeFy]

I meant 46.5.

Quick mental. Crop 1.6 * 1.6 roughly 2.6
2.6 * 18 mpix = 36 + 6 + 4.8 = 46.8 mpix which is about 46.5

There you go. 46.5 Mpix. Looks like you did the math and i'm about .5 off the real answer. :)

[Xenedis]

The 16-35 kills the 17-40 at f2.8...

Given the fact that 17-40 cannot open up to f/2.8, the 16-35 would always win. No competition. :-)

[pmack]

Looks like you did the math and i'm about .5 off the real answer. :)
yeah i know that's why i was impressed if you did that in your head.
I can't do anything without a calculator these days.
Interesting way you did it, hardest part for me was finding the size of the canon aps-c sensor as i got different numbers wherever i looked.
DIdn't think of diving the lenghts by 1.6
Though interestly if you do that, you the sensor should be 22.5x15.
Which made me realise, the crop factor is actually 1.621621621*
Well there you go i learnt something today.

[Nige]

Just my .2c. I have the 16-35mm and it is fantastic. I don't think the 17-40mm is too bad either. I have shot with both and it depends on what your going to shoot for. For lanscape with both at f11 I dont think it will make a huge difference. But if your planning on shooting in low light the f2.8 may make a difference.

Cheers
-Nigel

[chrisprendergast]

+1 for 16-35 II

[KeeFy]

Engineer + Asian?

I like numbers, but no way i'd be able to crunch it the way you did mentally. :)

But I definitely did it slower than punching through a calculator
So maybe it should be said slow mental sum. LoL.

[pmack]

haha, no just engineer, i take it you're both.


Given the fact that 17-40 cannot open up to f/2.8, the 16-35 would always win. No competition. :-)

that's what i thought, but i think they meant the 16-35 @ f/2.8 is better than the 17-40 @ f/4

[spasmoid]

I own the 16-35L MkII and I am extremely pleased with it. It was my first L lens and only my second decent lens (after the 50mm f/1.8).
All I know is, my mate has the 17-40 and every time we shoot together, he wants to borrow my 16-35.

I will say this, I shoot weddings in a variety of lighting conditions, and faster lenses means more reliable and more responsive autofocus. I often shoot wide open at f/2.8 if I want to blue the background. You can get fairly good results considering it is wide angle. The next lens I want to get is the 24mm f/1.4 for it's huge aperture. I can only imagine this lens will focus even better under low-lighting conditions plus I will be able to get some dreamy wide-angle shots.

Congrats on having a full frame camera, although I do not know why that would scare you. The only full-frame I could afford is an EOS 3, and it loves my 16-35.

[iwkyb]

16-35 if you have the cash, 17-40 if you want light weight. Sharpness is actually quite close (unless pixel peeper - then 16-35 is slightly better at the edges).

Above advantage doesn't apply for me since I am using cropped sensor - craving for full frame to make use of my 16-35 to its original purpose.

[selaw]

Just got my 17-40L today and I'm sure the test will be what I can do with it not what the lens is capable of. Can't wait to start playing :D

[chriso145]

I'd go the 17-40, I really think the only benefit of the 16-35 is the extra stop...

I don't think image quality is noticeably different between the two, and for the price difference definitely not..