Upgraded to Canon 16-35 L F 2.8 II from 17-40 L F4

[Dwarak]

Just invested in the 16-35 L finally one lens which I can use for landscapes and for some night shots at F2.8

[andylo]

Congrat :)

Current 17-40L owner :) Dreaming to get a 16-35L II too :D

(But before that I will get a 24mm TS-E II)

[Dwarak]

Congrat :)

Current 17-40L owner :) Dreaming to get a 16-35L II too :D

(But before that I will get a 24mm TS-E II)

One day andylo one day you will get there I want to take advantage of the F2.8 for star shots to reduce the shutter time

[SimonG]

I'd be interested to see some comparison shots between the two ;-)

Do you notice the difference in weight?

[Dwarak]

I'd be interested to see some comparison shots between the two ;-)

Do you notice the difference in weight?

Simon i just got it this afternoon have not yet made it home will compare the weight and let you know but the 16-35 feels heavier. I am due to go to a sunset shoot will post some comparison shots soon

[CAP]

Is there any significant IQ difference in these two lenses?
Would be interested to see comparison shots of same subject.
Understand and agree with you wanting f/2.8 (something everyone lusts after)
Just interested to know if they differ, after all they are both "L" series lens are they not?

[Bennymiata]

As this zoom area is the only area that I'm missing, I am also trying to decide which one of these would be better for me.

At this stage, the 17-40 is ahead as I like the fact that all my 77mm filters (like my Sing-Ray variable ND) will work with it as well as it being so much cheaper.
On checking the lens test sites, there doesn't seem to be much between them as far as sharpness goes, but I'm willing to be swayed if real life shots are definitely better from the 16-35.
Sharpness is not my main concern, but the colours and contrast are more important for me.

I'd be very interested in seeing and hearing about the differences from you Dwarak.

[William W]

Just interested to know if they differ, after all they are both "L" series lens are they not?

Not really.

One is paying a lot more for the extra large chunk of coke bottle and the engineering of it to make F/2.8 at 16mm and still keep contrast and sharpness and the least practical barrelling - sure they are both L Lenses and for mostly different purposes and the extra stop of light is the main significant difference – it always costs more for the last little bit.

I doubt many would buy the 16 to 35MkII over the 17 to 40L unless F/2.8 (as opposed to F/4) was required: or another reason is for ego value and it is a nice lens and if that’s what pleases one, then do it.

WW

[andylo]

Although I have used a 16-35II but I never do a shot by shot comparison.

Accordingly to the internet - while center sharpness is about the same (if any), 16-35II excels in the corner sharpness.

With the landscapes I have shot with my friend's 16-35II, I would not say I can see a lot of difference (in terms of sharpness) with my own eyes - even pixel peeping. But the f/2.8 certainly open up a lot of doors for creativity where the F/4 certainly is not cutting it (especially when foreground interest is close)

[cam bicknell]

I will be really interested to hear how you find it in comparison to the 17-40. Direct experience of both makes your impressions more useful.
Please keep us updated.
Cheers

[commking]

I notice you have the Sigma 10-20mm also. Now that you have the 16-35 L, do you see yourself still needing the Sigma?

[Dwarak]

I notice you have the Sigma 10-20mm also. Now that you have the 16-35 L, do you see yourself still needing the Sigma?

Yes I do I use the 10-20 on my 7d and use it for taking time lapse videos and use the 16-35 on my 5d mark 2 for more serious landscape work.

[LJG]

Accordingly to the internet - while center sharpness is about the same (if any), 16-35II excels in the corner sharpness.



I have actually noticed the slight softness on the edges on my 17-40, but I would be interested to hear Dwarak's comments on the differences once he has it sorted.