# 17-40 vs 16-35 f/4 stopped down



## YellowJersey (May 13, 2015)

How does the 17-40 compare to the 16-35 f/4 when stopped down? Most of the information I find talks about shooting wide open (and the 16-35 f/4 is the undisputed king in that regard), but I haven't found much when shooting stopped down. I'm usually shooting between f/8 and f/16, almost never wide open, so I'm wondering whether it makes sense to upgrade.


----------



## rs (May 13, 2015)

You can make your own comparisons here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 13, 2015)

I have recently sold my 17-40 F4 L (of many years) to help fund a 16-35 F4 L IS. 
I have not done any scientific comparisons or even gone back to re-photograph the same sites - I don't have to.

The best thing about the 17-40, to me, was the way it rendered colours and the 16-35 appears to be VERY close but I may have to give the nod to the 17-40, remember this is a very subjective opinion. As to stopping down I have yet to use either lens at below F5.6 except for testing. At F4 the 16-35 is better but I don't use F4 so I don't care. At smaller apertures the center sharpness on either is just fine for me, but as you move further from the center the 16-35 F4 progressively looks better ending up significantly better in the corners - especially at the shorter end. To me the main improvement is the bramatically reduced distortion at the short end. Whist 17mm on the 17-40 was great for effects at car shows and the like it was pretty useless if you wanted straight lines in your image. Whilst this can be corrected in PP it is far from ideal. The 16-35 F4 renders lines far straighter making it much more useful for architecture and requiring minimal correction or none in the case of landscapes.

It is still very early days but this is definitely the best "Bang for Buck" lens upgrade I have yet made. The only thing I am somewhat baffled by is why on earth they put IS on it? The IS works very well but for what? Whist this lens is superb I can't help feeling that I could, possibly, have been a touch better without the extra dead piece of glass that IS requires. They didn't put IS on my 24-70 F2.8 V2 and I think it is the better for it, I wonder if Canon would offer an IS removal service for my lenses?


----------



## YuengLinger (May 13, 2015)

Why are you shooting at f 16? Just curious, thanks.


----------



## drjlo (May 14, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> The only thing I am somewhat baffled by is why on earth they put IS on it?



Heck, for the relatively low price Canon is asking for it, I will take the included IS. 
I take my 16-35 f/4 IS often to indoor, evening events, and IS does come in handy when lights are low inside and I am shooting off 1 second exposures with decently sharp results  I do agree I wish my 24-70 f/2.8 II had IS instead..


----------



## wsheldon (May 14, 2015)

Good comparison here: http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/

I just sold my 17-40L and got a 16-35 f4 myself, because I do shoot interiors and events where the edge/corner resolution at wide-to-moderate apertures is important, and the IS is a very welcome addition for travel. My 17-40 was never perfectly centered, even after repair, so that exacerbated the sloppy edge/corner resolution on the left side of the frame and helped my decision. I'm extremely happy with the new lens. Biggest surprises so far:

1) Almost non-existent CA in the corners, even at f4. 17-40 wasn't bad, but this lens is in a different league. Very nice for architecture and landscapes with white features on the edges

2) IS is more useful than I thought. I can shoot at 1/4 s with my elbow on something and get very sharp shots. That's incredible.

3) As mentioned, distortion seems a bit better handled on the wide end

4) 16 vs 17mm is a bigger gain for me than losing 5mm on the long end. I have a 24-105, so there's still nice overlap

Good luck.


----------



## TeT (May 14, 2015)

biggest readily visible difference is the Chromatic aberration present on the corners of 17 40


----------



## YellowJersey (May 14, 2015)

I was baffled by the IS, too, at first. The more I think about it, the more it makes some sense. It sounds like the stabalisation had a lot to do with the video crowd, as you can get some bloody smooth handheld video, and that only gets better when you apply stabalisation in post. Some of the handheld stuff I've seen looks like it was shot on a tripod. Even for stills, it allows you to get some pretty crazy slow shutter speeds. I've seen some good looking stuff around 1/15th of a second that was handheld, which is handy if you want to do a long(ish) exposure and don't have a tripod handy or are in a situation where a tripod is impractical. As for whether this is worth the extra weight and size of the lens depends on the person, though. I almost always shoot with a tripod, so it probably won't be very useful to me. 





YuengLinger said:


> Why are you shooting at f 16? Just curious, thanks.



I shoot landscapes and nature, mostly. So I'm usually between f/8 and f/16, depending on the light. I don't like going any smaller than f/16 due to diffraction. It depends on the situation really.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 14, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> How does the 17-40 compare to the 16-35 f/4 when stopped down?



Lookie here, always your best bet: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=4&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4

[/quote]


TeT said:


> biggest readily visible difference is the Chromatic aberration present on the corners of 17 40



Of course that's the one thing easily removed by software. I wouldn't dare to argue in favor of the old 17-40L in an enthusiasts' forum, but still imho it's "just fine" for stopped down shooting on a tripod and considering the price (and L build quality) a good alternative to the more expensive, newer uwa lenses.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 14, 2015)

I find that stopped down, many so-so great lenses become giants.
With wide lenses...we nearly always stop down for depth of field.
Which is ironic because most lens tests major on wide open performance.


----------



## YellowJersey (May 15, 2015)

> Lookie here, always your best bet: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=4&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4



Thanks for the link! That really helps with my humming and hawing. Looks like, when stopped down, CA is the major difference. The 17-40 is a little softer stopped down, but just a little bit, so it doesn't seem like's really worth the upgrade for sharpness. 

Is it better to correct CA in-camera or in post-processing? (my suspicion is that the answer is "post-processing you big thicky wing wong!" but I figure it's worth a shot). 

I was originally going to go for the Samyang 14mm 2.8 and then start saving for the 16-35mm f/4. But if CA is really the only difference that I care about (while IS is useful for others, it's not really my bag), the 16-35mm f/4 has dropped a bit on my priorities list (still would like to get it someday, though). But since I'd like to get into shooting the stars more and my existing 17-40 still seems to hold up when stopped down, I think my money might be better spent on the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 (which seems to have spectacular reviews, particularly for the stars).


----------



## RLPhoto (May 15, 2015)

F-11 to f-16, they look the same. Below them, the 16-35mm is better in every way besides price.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 16, 2015)

Just my 2p but I found that moving from the 17-40 F4 L to the 16-35 F4 L IS to be a very significant upgrade!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 17, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> How does the 17-40 compare to the 16-35 f/4 when stopped down? Most of the information I find talks about shooting wide open (and the 16-35 f/4 is the undisputed king in that regard), but I haven't found much when shooting stopped down. I'm usually shooting between f/8 and f/16, almost never wide open, so I'm wondering whether it makes sense to upgrade.


At narrower apertures the new 16-35/4 and the 17-40/4 performs very similarly at the center of the frame, some difference is found at the borders where the 16-35/4 performs slightly better. I prefer the color rendition of the new 16-35/4 as well.
And the IS comes very handy when shotting venues with low light since the IS is very effective and I have shot at speeds as low as 1/3s with excellent results.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 17, 2015)

At f/16 a Coke bottle looks good. The higher price for a fast lens is due to the many elements required for a excellent image at full aperture.

That's why a good photographer can get sharp images by understanding and using his equipment to its best advantage.


----------



## YellowJersey (May 17, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> At f/16 a Coke bottle looks good. The higher price for a fast lens is due to the many elements required for a excellent image at full aperture.
> 
> That's why a good photographer can get sharp images by understanding and using his equipment to its best advantage.



Very well said. Hence why I'm now eying the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 as my next lens purchase, as my existing lenses don't do the stars very well and the Tamron seems like a significant improvement over the Samyang 14mm 2.8 that I've been looking at (still need to research think about it more, though). I think it makes more sense to invest in a lens that's much better for one area than a lens that's only a little better across the board at the settings I usually use. 

There's also the area of cost. I shoot landscapes and I'd rather have money to do trips to go out shoot. No sense spending all your money on the latest gear and not have any left over to go out and actually use it. Sure, I'd like to the 16-35mm f/4 and the Tamron, but that's just not something I can afford right now. A shot taken with less-than-the-best gear is better than no shot at all. This is why I'm not keen on upgrading from my 5DmkIII any time soon. Sure, better things will come along (and already have, in some respects), but I'm pretty happy with what I've got, even if it isn't "the best."


----------



## Marsu42 (May 17, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> I shoot landscapes and I'd rather have money to do trips to go out shoot. No sense spending all your money on the latest gear and not have any left over to go out and actually use it.



...and ...



YellowJersey said:


> A shot taken with less-than-the-best gear is better than no shot at all.



That's quite a bold statement in an enthusiasts' forum, watch out for your Karma getting hit for six :->


----------



## YellowJersey (May 17, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot landscapes and I'd rather have money to do trips to go out shoot. No sense spending all your money on the latest gear and not have any left over to go out and actually use it.
> ...



I wouldn't say it's terribly unreasonable to keep "Go out and take photos" at the top of the priorities list.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 17, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > YellowJersey said:
> ...



Which would explain your low post count  ... or you've probably got a faster computer than me and don't have lotsa time to waste in your web browser while Lightroom is buying busy rendering.


----------



## YellowJersey (May 17, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I have indeed seen what you did there. 

I should make a meme. "Everyone's rushing out to the buy the latest gear. Meanwhile, I'm like, "I think I'll take the money I didn't spent on gear and put it towards spending 10 weeks cycling across Canada with the gear I already have." "


----------

