# 17-40 f/4L vs 16-35 F/4L



## TeenTog (Jun 21, 2014)

In a few months I'll be upgrading from my rebel camera to a 70D. At the same time, I'd like to invest in some nicer glass. I would like to start off by purchasing a wide angle lens, which would mainly be used for landscapes. I've done a bit of research, but I'm still a little unsure whether I should go for the 17-40 or the new 16-35. Quite frankly, I don't see whether there is a significant difference


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2014)

For an APS-C camera, I'd be looking at the Canon 10-22mm or Canon 10-18mm, the Sigma 8-16mm if you want even wider, and the Tokina 11-16mm if you need faster.


----------



## TeenTog (Jun 21, 2014)

I've thought about the 10-18, but I'd like to start investing in full-frame compatible L lenses


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 21, 2014)

For landscapes, you usually want a lot of depth of field. This means stopping down. Once you stop down to f/8 or smaller, most lenses look pretty good, so you pay a lot for almost no gain.

There is always the question for a APS lens, if 17mm is wide enough. A inexpensive 15-85mm lens is wider and stopped down to f/8 or less, its as good as the rest.
And, as Neuro remarked, there are wider lenses that might be a better choice yet.


----------



## siegsAR (Jun 22, 2014)

Neuro's post sums it up. You might as well try and decide upgrading to fullframe now(or a little bit later) and skip the 70D.

Because you can't have it both ways, with those L lenses you'll have "normal" zoom lenses which might not be wide enough for you; going with the suggested lenses still limits you to crop only.

I have a 70D and the 10-22mm btw.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2014)

[quote author=TeenTog]
In a few months I'll be upgrading from my rebel camera to a 70D...I'd like to start investing in full-frame compatible L lenses
[/quote]

A few months ago, you'd have been choosing between the 17-40 and the 16-35/2.8...for many users, the 16-35/4 IS is better than both. 

Buy lenses for the camera you have today, not a camera you may get someday...maybe. In particular, the most significant lens cost and performance benefits of a smaller (APS-C) image circle are at the wide/ultrawide focal lengths (and the 16/17-xx L lenses aren't even giving you ultrawide on APS-C).


----------



## Zv (Jun 22, 2014)

The recently released 10-18 is a no brainer if you have an APSC body. Stopped down a bit it will do just fine for landscapes. If you decide to move to FF you could easily sell it and move on. 

Or you could get the excellent 10-22 but is the extra cost worth it for you? 

Buying any of the L ultrawides seems like a waste. At widest you'll get 25mm or something. If that's all you need you're better off with the EF-S 15-85 or EF-S 17-55. (Great lenses but a PITA when you try and sell them as you lose a lot of money). 

The new STM lenses made for APS C seem like a really great deal to me. You get cheap and good IQ. That's what I would do then if I need a IQ boost move up to a 6D and some L glass.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 22, 2014)

You'd be crazy to get anything other than the 10-18. By the time you upgrade to FF, you'll probably be able to get a refurb copy of the 16-35 f/4L.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 22, 2014)

TeenTog said:


> I've thought about the 10-18, but I'd like to start investing in full-frame compatible L lenses



But there isn't an L zoom lens that's really wide-angle on APS-C (or are 16 or 17mm wide enough?), so you would have to get something like the Sigma 12-24mm. The 10-18 costs only $300 - it's surely not a wasted investment even if you end up going FF (you can always sell it anyway).


----------



## Khalai (Jun 22, 2014)

TeenTog said:


> I've thought about the 10-18, but I'd like to start investing in full-frame compatible L lenses



When exactly are you planning of going fullframe? If it's more than 2-3 years, go for EF-S lenses. For landscapes, even the cheapo 10-18 stopped down at f/8-f/11 will be plenty sharp (and plenty wide, much wider than 16mm of the 16-35/4L IS). Save yourself some money to travel/another lens, for the time being


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 22, 2014)

Maybe just get the full frame camera now rather than later?


----------



## Berowne (Jun 22, 2014)

The 17-40/4 is a good lens - ist is a workhorse for many photographers in full-frame. But for the use with a crop camera it is not an ideal solution. The modern crop-lenses are cheaper and are better adjusted to the present cameratechnology. If you really want to buy a full-frame-camera, then buy it now and not later.


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 22, 2014)

To add to what others have said, a 17 or 16 could be too wide on a crop camera. I'd get the 10-22. Even if you upgrade to FF later, this lens will hold its value and you can always sell it.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Jun 22, 2014)

I would also buy a 6D and a new 16-35 1:4 L IS - and not the 70D .

Or stay at crop - but for Crop only the 10-22 or 10-18 EFs.

The 17-40 is a Workhorse - thats true, but the newer Lenses seems to be better.

I am thinking about selling my 17-40 - but in practice the Pics are ok from this Lens.
Should i be a Pixelfreak or Photograph ?

Greet´s 

Bernd


----------



## EchoLocation (Jun 22, 2014)

I would not buy the 70D. I would buy a used 6D, 7D or just wait. 
I had the 17-40 and hated it as mine was super super soft. 
If you really want to buy a 70D or will wait a couple years to go FF I would just buy the new cheap 10-18 as it seems like a great option for budget and also for the outdoors/landscapes as it is small and light.
If I was in DSLR world though(i'm now all mirrorless,) I would skip all the aps-c and just go straight for the 5DIII and some L glass.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 22, 2014)

Another option. Get the Tokina 11-16...while you lose a little range, having the f/2.8 gives you flexibility in low-light. As an added bonus, it works pretty damn well at 15-16mm on full-frame

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm#fx


EchoLocation said:


> I would skip all the aps-c and just go straight for the 5DIII and some L glass.


So nice to spend someone else's money.

That said, there is a MAJOR difference between 16mm and 10-11mm, so, if you're gonna be shooting a lot of landscapes, it's worth getting an ultra-wide to really open up your options. The 10-18 would cost you $300 now, and you can sell it for $200 at least a year from now. Is that $100 loss really worth missing out on hundreds of shots? Same would be true for the other ultra-wides.

I thought I would move from APS-C to full-frame about a year ago. I still havent. Turns out that, aside from night photography, APS-C isn't really holding me back in any of my photography


----------



## TeenTog (Jun 23, 2014)

> So nice to spend someone else's money.



;D exactly. I'm upgrading to the 70D because that's what's in by budget. But after reading everybody's passive/aggressive posts, I think that the 10-18 or 11-16 is the best route at the moment. 

Thanks for the input everybody!


----------



## brad-man (Jun 23, 2014)

TeenTog said:


> > So nice to spend someone else's money.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



FYI: Canon Direct is having another sale of $125 off a refurb purchase of $500 or more until June 28. That puts the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 at $395. They are out of stock right now, but you can put in a notification at canonpricewatch.com so they'll let you know when they're in stock again. You must add the lens to your cart to see the discount.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2014)

For a crop camera, the 15-85 is a decent all around choice. You should be stopping down to f/8, f/11 or even smaller for landscapes, and the resolution at small apertures is pretty equal on any ordinary lens, because they are limited by diffraction.

If you want to be ready for FF, get the 16-35 f/4L, its head and shoulders better than the 17-40. The 17-40 is not the best choice for crop bodies.


----------



## e17paul (Jun 23, 2014)

preppyak said:


> I thought I would move from APS-C to full-frame about a year ago. I still havent. Turns out that, aside from night photography, APS-C isn't really holding me back in any of my photography



APS-C also gives extra depth of field compared to FF, for landscapes at the same angle of view. I chose FF because I prefer a prime with a depth of field scale, but I'm tempted by the cheaper 10-18 with a 100D to carry every day. The total is probably cheaper than a 16-35 IS on its own. In limited light though, the 16-35 would surely show the strength of full frame.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 23, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Maybe just get the full frame camera now rather than later?



+1, go for a 6D


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jun 23, 2014)

i guess i'm in disagreement with most people here on what lenses to buy. if you know that you're going to FF later on, then get FF compatible lenses - that's what i did and i couldn't be happier.

with EF-S lenses, you're probably not going to get much when you resell them, and they also might be hard to sell. it depends on where you live and whether or not you want to deal with ebay, but it won't be as easy as most people think it is.

if you're not getting a FF for like 4 years, then definitely get EF-S lenses, or you'll be unhappy for a long time. if you're planning on upgrading soon, then get the big boy L's and save yourself the cash in the long-run.

finally, get them used if you can. most L lenses are built extremely well, and buying them used can save you a ton of cash (i got the 85L ii for about $1,000 US). if it's a complicated lens (zoom and IS) then you might want to go new, but basic primes are usually in "perfect real-world" conditions when you get them used.


----------

