# Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 28, 2014)

```
<p><a href="http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/" target="_blank">Graham Clark</a> has completed a shootout between the latest Canon ultra wide angle zoom, the EF 16-35 f/4L IS and the always dependable and very popular EF 17-40 f/4L.</p>
<p>There are tons of RAW files and video to whet your appetite if you happen to be undecided between the two lenses, or if you’re not sure you want to “upgrade” your EF 17-40 f/4L. I found this to be about the most thorough review and comparison between the two lenses, as well as showcasing the EF 16-35 f/4L IS.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K7n1L1QCjqU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Graham says in his conclusions

</strong><em>“The inclusion of Image Stabilization, incredible corner sharpness and bar-none the best CA performance on corners I’ve ever seen put the Canon 16-35 F4 IS at the top of a very short list of must-get Ultra-Wide Angle Zooms. If you’re a Canon or Sony landscape and/or a travel photographer in the market for a ultra-wide angle zoom, and/or you’re looking to upgrade whatever you currently have, this is the one to get.”</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/" target="_blank">Read the full shootout at GrahamClarkPhoto.com</a></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS $1199: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=6AVWEQKBYJ7TXPHU" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA16354.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 17-40 f/4L $839: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6WO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00009R6WO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=47LMPTCRS374COKV" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA1740U.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## justawriter (Sep 28, 2014)

One grammar nazi point, it should be "whet your appetite" as whet is a synonym for sharpen. Wet as a verb is what a baby does to its diaper.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 28, 2014)

Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 28, 2014)

Very nicely done! I appreciate the detailed comparisons at various focal lengths and f-stops. I have been contemplating buying a 16-35 f/4 and this review helped make my decision to do it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 28, 2014)

bholliman said:


> Very nicely done! I appreciate the detailed comparisons at various focal lengths and f-stops. I have been contemplating buying a 16-35 f/4 and this review helped make my decision to do it.


You gotta love cr and members with GAS ;D


----------



## Etienne (Sep 28, 2014)

Should be compared to the 16-35 f/2.8 mkII


----------



## rsk7 (Sep 28, 2014)

He mentions needing thin UV filter preferably with double threading so lens caps stay on. But he doesn't recommend any.

Anyone know which brands/models work without adding to the vignette?


----------



## fugu82 (Sep 28, 2014)

The B+W 77mm Slim MRC Filter XS-Pro works for me.


----------



## TeT (Sep 28, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Should be compared to the 16-35 f/2.8 mkII



No 17 40 is the proper target, the 2.8 ppl are 2.8 ppl for a reason (they will get theirs with the 2.8 IS if they are lucky in 2 years). The f4 and higher (landscape) ppl should be going apes for this one.

The 17 40 L is at its cheapest ever on eBay right now with an increase in the 17-40 volume over the past month ....


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 28, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.
> 
> And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.
> 
> I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.



Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 28, 2014)

rsk7 said:


> He mentions needing thin UV filter preferably with double threading so lens caps stay on. But he doesn't recommend any.
> 
> Anyone know which brands/models work without adding to the vignette?



There's a few expensive options out there, but not too many out there right now. So I decided to design and manufacture my own, and they should be ready to ship by November 1st or so.







If you're looking for a good option to buy immediately I'd recommend this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756191-REG/B_W_1066125_77mm_Ultraviolet_UV_MC.html/BI/19568/KBID/11943/kw/BWUVXSP77/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xBWUVXSP77


----------



## candyman (Sep 28, 2014)

I enjoyed the review.
Just wondering if you had the time to breath.. : ....it goes so fast.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 28, 2014)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.
> ...



My comment had nothing to do with your choice of t-shirt. Seriously?! That's what you took from my comment. lol. 

Choosing a bright white background like that is not wise. Plus you need a 2 or 3 second intro of something.

Very poor video, and I personally would not take any camera advice from someone that produces someone like that about a camera product.


----------



## infared (Sep 28, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



WOW...after your first comment, I didn't think that you could be any ruder....but guess what, you proved me wrong!


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 28, 2014)

infared said:


> WOW...after your first comment, I didn't think that you could be any ruder....but guess what, you proved me wrong!



Rude?! Pray tell, how have I been rude?


----------



## infared (Sep 28, 2014)

Graham..thanks for the review..tee shirts aside (sheeeeesh?!)...I think you did a great job at reviewing the lens...and you kept it in the realm of your experiences and use...What you know best. I actually sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II and bought the new offering. After owning a 17mm TSE II and a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 the results from the 16-35mm f/2.8 II can many times look like soggy breakfast cereal. (I know zooms cannot generally compete with primes ..but one would think that a zoom in the price range of the 16-35mm f/2.8 II could at least show up?..good to see that Canon is improving on this with some of their newer offerings!). I find the 16-35 f/4 IS lens to be sharper, have less CA and the IS helps make up for the lack of f/2.8. I am surprised at your results as many reviews out there show a more dramatic improvement over the 17-40mm in the area of sharpness. I am thinking that you have an extremely sharp copy of the 17-40mm perhaps.

One thing that many reviewers rarely mention about the 17-40mm is the extremely short "throw" on the zoom range at the wide end... I ordered 17-40mm lens first, (before I bought my 16-35mm f/2.8 II) and as soon as I put it on my camera and experienced the truncated throw I just return it. To me there was just not any "room to zoom" at the wide end...it felt like I was at 20mm and then 17mm with no room to explore anything in between. Just did not like that "feel" when using the lens. The 16-35mm f/2.8 II and the 16-35 f/4 IS have a MUCH more pleasing zoom throw through the same focal length range than the 17-40mm.

Thanks for the review. You validate my purchase from my latest G.A.S. attack. LOL! (actually...I was able to purchase this lens & filter for what I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II & 82mm B+W filter for. So the new lens did not cost me anything. Canon did a nice job at keeping the price reasonable on the new lens).
I chose the B+W 77mm XS-Pro CLEAR MRC-Nano 010M Filter...and I am not noticing any increased vignetting.


----------



## rbr (Sep 28, 2014)

candyman said:


> I enjoyed the review.
> Just wondering if you had the time to breath.. : ....it goes so fast.



My sentiments exactly. I would have enjoyed watching the video more if it was a few seconds longer and even slight pauses were in there to breathe. I get the impression that it was just put together in fragments and that wasn't taken into consideration. Nobody can physically talk like that non stop, so it can be uncomfortable to listen to at times.

Otherwise an excellent review.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 28, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



Oh no... I'm heartbroken ;D

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 28, 2014)

infared said:


> Thanks for the review. You validate my purchase from my latest G.A.S. attack. LOL! (actually...I was able to purchase this lens & filter for what I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II & 82mm B+W filter for. So the new lens did not cost me anything. Canon did a nice job at keeping the price reasonable on the new lens).
> I chose the B+W 77mm XS-Pro CLEAR MRC-Nano 010M Filter...and I am not noticing any increased vignetting.



Thanks! Glad you could find it useful.

How do you find the sharpness between the 16-35 F4 and the 16-35 2.8?

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 28, 2014)

rbr said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I enjoyed the review.
> ...



95% of people have short attention spans and very little time in general, tried to make the video as short as possible. That was the thinking anyways. 

Graham


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 29, 2014)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



You seem to have a problem taking constructive criticism.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 29, 2014)

rsk7 said:


> He mentions needing thin UV filter preferably with double threading so lens caps stay on. But he doesn't recommend any.
> 
> Anyone know which brands/models work without adding to the vignette?



B+W MRC Nano works really well for me. 

Graham..I liked the review, a great job. I actually sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II and bought the new offering. After owning in the past 17-40mm f4L, 10-22mm and 16-35 f2.8L II, I can also say this is the sharpest wide open from center to borders and also allow to share all my 77mm filters that I couldn't do it with my f2.8L II.
This is fast an accurate and I could get sharp pictures at 1/5 s without forcing too much.


----------



## magic koala (Sep 29, 2014)

Thank you, I found the review very informative and useful. I have the 17-40mm and I appreciate your findings that it is still a solid performer. This means I can hold off of the 16-35mm f/4 and save for another lens or camera. I did not find your tshirt or intro distracting. You put a lot of time and effort in your video and that is appreciated.

Thanks for being constructive unlike some posters.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 29, 2014)

Great review 

Will keep my 16-35mm F2.8 for now.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 29, 2014)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



Graham - thanks for taking the time to do such a thorough review of the lens. I have learned that doing reviews always opens you up to criticisms, but I notice from your KBID number that you have also learned the upside of doing them, too.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 29, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> rsk7 said:
> 
> 
> > He mentions needing thin UV filter preferably with double threading so lens caps stay on. But he doesn't recommend any.
> ...



Thanks! Glad you could find it useful. 

Great to hear your thoughts on the 16-35 2.8!

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 29, 2014)

magic koala said:


> Thank you, I found the review very informative and useful. I have the 17-40mm and I appreciate your findings that it is still a solid performer. This means I can hold off of the 16-35mm f/4 and save for another lens or camera. I did not find your tshirt or intro distracting. You put a lot of time and effort in your video and that is appreciated.
> 
> Thanks for being constructive unlike some posters.



Thanks! I'm glad that you could find it useful. 

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 29, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Graham - thanks for taking the time to do such a thorough review of the lens. I have learned that doing reviews always opens you up to criticisms, but I notice from your KBID number that you have also learned the upside of doing them, too.  Keep up the good work.



Hey Dustin, thanks! 

Looking at your review now, looks great.

What's a KBID number? 

Graham


----------



## EugeneG (Sep 30, 2014)

Thanks once again for yet another excellent, beyond-the-scope-of-majority-homosapien-photographic-mental-capacity, thorough, insightful, helpful and professional review Graham.

PS: By all means continue to wear white t-shirts (on hot sunny days its one way of keeping cool) -> the moment you wear white pants, white cowboy boots and a white cowboy hat WITH a white t-shirt (and white shades) is the time comments from the peanut gallery might warrant passing over one of your reviews


----------



## Steb (Oct 1, 2014)

rsk7 said:


> He mentions needing thin UV filter preferably with double threading so lens caps stay on. But he doesn't recommend any.
> 
> Anyone know which brands/models work without adding to the vignette?



I can recommend the Hoya HD line of filters. They are very slim, don't do any vignetting and they work with the standard lens cap. AFAIK you need a special lens cap for the B+W slim filters.


----------



## Khalai (Oct 1, 2014)

Steb said:


> AFAIK you need a special lens cap for the B+W slim filters.



You don't actually. I'm using XS line of B+W Clear 007 filters on my lenses and lens caps are holding just fine.


----------



## candyman (Oct 1, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Steb said:
> 
> 
> > AFAIK you need a special lens cap for the B+W slim filters.
> ...




+1 I also use the XS line. For the 16-35 f/4 I use : B+W 77mm 010 UV MRC Nano xS-Pro Digital E Filter


The slimfilter is very thin. I am not sure if the lenscap will have enough grip to be attached on to the slimfilter. I do not use the slimfilter.


----------



## infared (Oct 1, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



Please stop.


----------



## infared (Oct 1, 2014)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the review. You validate my purchase from my latest G.A.S. attack. LOL! (actually...I was able to purchase this lens & filter for what I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II & 82mm B+W filter for. So the new lens did not cost me anything. Canon did a nice job at keeping the price reasonable on the new lens).
> ...



I find the sharpness much better across the whole image...and further the contrast is greatly improved which ads to the overall better IQ. I just go out with more coincidence when using this lens...That means a lot to my enjoyment of the image-making process! ;D


----------

