# Upgrade from 17-40 f4 to 16-35 f4 IS?



## SUNDOG04 (Dec 7, 2016)

I am curious if anyone has replaced their 17-40 f4 with the 16-35 F4 IS lens? 

Do you feel it is worth the extra money to upgrade? There is where I am having trouble. Even with current rebates, it is still a fairly expensive lens. I do have a 24 2.8 IS lens and love the IS. I use a tripod frequently but still find the IS very useful at times when I don't want the burden of hiking with a tripod. The 17-40 is good lens, could be sharper, especially at edges and wider apetures but this 16-35 lens is very appealing with its sharpness and IS.

I use a 6D, and a RRS tripod, so I am serious about sharp photos.


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2016)

I have owned the 17-40, 16-35 2.8 Mk2 and the 16-35 f/4 L (2 copies) The f/4L is by far the best of these 3. Corner to corner sharpness, center sharpness, color rendition, contrast...all beat the other two. Better with pincushioning and vignetting as well. Now...that said, it's no 16-35 mk3...that's a stellar piece of glass in a class by itself. 

The 16-35 f/4 is easy to find at a great price as well, CPSW has an awesome Street Price right now.


----------



## Arty (Dec 7, 2016)

Whether or not it is worth an upgrade depends on your needs and wallet. I have the 17-40 and prefer the lighter weight and range of the lens to the 16-35 F4IS. I don't use the 17-40 that much, so it isn't worth the upgrade to me. I like the results that I get from the older lens, and think of it as an outside, good lighting lens.
If you can benefit from the IS, and plan to use the lens a LOT, the upgrade might be worth it. I last used my 17-40 on a trip, and even though most of the time it was used outside, there were times when I needed to use it inside, under very low light. Here, the IS of the 16-35F4IS would have been very helpful.
Only you can answer the question as to whether the upgrade is worth it. If the lens will be used a great deal, and you also want to use it inside in museums, cathedrals, etc., then it could be worth it. If you have lots of dough to burn, and plan to use the zoom range, then sure.
If I were buying an ultrawide zoom right now, it would probably be the 16-35 with IS. If I had a very high megapixel camera, I would want IS. However, I don't plan to upgrade.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2016)

Arty said:


> Whether or not it is worth an upgrade depends on your needs and wallet. I have the 17-40 and prefer the lighter weight and range of the lens to the 16-35 F4IS. *I don't use the 17-40 that much, so it isn't worth the upgrade to me.*


Same here. 

But if I was doing much more UWA I would seriously consider it because of all advantages mentioned by slclick.


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2016)

And here's a review from a respected source....http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2016)

The jump in IQ from the 17-40 to 16-35 f4 IS is larger than most lens upgrades. In my opinion if you are interested in sharp the upgrade is a no brainer, the difference is noticeable in even modest sized images.

I'd take a Manfrotto and 16-35 f4 IS over an RRS and 17-40 any day!


----------



## kaihp (Dec 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The jump in IQ from the 17-40 to 16-35 f4 IS is larger than most lens upgrades. In my opinion if you are interested in sharp the upgrade is a no brainer, the difference is noticeable in even modest sized images.



Agreed. I upgraded my 17-40L to the 16-36/4L and the IQ just _murders_ the 17-40. Like others note, it's a bit of a niche lens, so I don't use it that often. But when you want corner-to-corner sharpness in the UWA range, then the 16-35/4L is an excellent choice.

(Yes, the 16-35/2.8 III is apparently even better, but the cost/value ratio is too low for me).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 7, 2016)

It all depends. If you are really critical and shoot wide open, its worth the money to upgrade. If you stop down, at f/8 -f/16 I would not bother to switch.

Many photos do not show the edge weakness unless you look really hard.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 7, 2016)

I have both and the EF 11-24mm as well. My copy of the 17-40 is particularly sharp, fell in love with it, it was my 2nd one, my first was good and a work horse but the 2nd one is amazing... That said, I picked up the 16-35 IS, not expecting much difference but wanting to try the IS because I was beginning to see some results in some of my images of a little shaking going on.. :

The 16-35 IS blew me away, I had no idea that an ultra wide could get any sharper than my excellent 17-40 copy! Additionally, what no one else has mentioned is that little extra focal length on the wide end is a huge difference to me, using this lens primarily for Real Estate work, it's allowing me to deliver much nicer, wider images to my clients. 

I felt like the 16mm end was the "sweet spot" for my work! Had a large credit at an online dealer and used it to purchase the 11-24mm just to see what all the hoorah was about. I honestly had no intention on keeping it but man, that thing is sweet!! I use it more than my 16-35 IS!! Now I think 12mm is the sweet spot for Real estate work, especially in the luxury home end, very nice. 

All said, I would buy the 16-35 IS in a heartbeat if I had to do it again, over my 17-40, no question. I still have the 17-40 thinking it would still have a place in my bag, like it did in my heart but I can honestly tell you, I've not used it since the first week I got the 16-35 and I was an early adopter, ordering mine within 3-4 weeks of availability. I just put my 17-40 up on Craigslist, not using it in well over a year or two, however long it's been since they came out with the 16-35 IS. So that extra mm on the wide end can be helpful too, depending on what your shooting. Great for landscapes as well... 

All the best!
Ken 8)


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Dec 8, 2016)

Thanks everyone. Very informative answers. It does sound that most people are please with the better performance of the the 16-35 IS over the 17-40. As stated, only I can decided it is with the cost to upgrade. I do think it is, but still struggle getting the money for it. I would do it in a heartbeat if money were not the issue. I do use the 17-40 quite a bit, so it is not too wide, and the extra 4 degrees (I think) would not be huge, but would be welcome.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 8, 2016)

The 16-35 f/4.0 is just better than the 17-40 at every measurable but whether it's sufficiently better at f/8.0 to warrant the upgrade price, only you will know.

There's already some very compelling reasons to upgrade but I would also like to add that you will be future proofing your kit with the 16-35 f/4.0 IS.

It's listed as a recommended lens for use on the 50mp 5DSR by Canon so I imagine it would get the most out of any DSLR Canon may release in the next 10 years minimum.


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 8, 2016)

I made the switch and never looked back. Very happy with the 16-35 f/4. The IS has been used a lot in situations where my tripod was impractical.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 8, 2016)

I bought my 17-40 in 2003 to replace the 24-85 kit lens on my 10D, as I wanted better image and build quality, and the wide end was more important that the long end, since it was to serve as a standard range zoom on a crop body.

When I migrated to full frame, the weak corners of the 17-40 (my copy, anyway) were revealed. I switched to the 24-105 for my standard zoom, and although I kept the 17-40, I was never very excited about using it, unless stopped down, as mentioned by Mt Spokane Photography.

So I jumped on the 16-35/4 about 6 months after its release (and all the subsequent glowing reviews), on a great deal (at the time) from CPW, and have been very satisfied with it. I never experience the pause that I had before mounting the 17-40, and consequently, use it a great deal more. The IS of course adds to the range of applications to which it is suited.

One final, minor note: the hood on the 17-40, although very shallow, was quite wide, and I found it a pain to pack in my hiking bag. Reversing it on the lens didn't help; I frequently either stuck in a (large) jacket pocket, or left it behind. The design of the 16-35/4's hood is much more backpack friendly.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 8, 2016)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Thanks everyone. Very informative answers. It does sound that most people are please with the better performance of the the 16-35 IS over the 17-40. As stated, only I can decided it is with the cost to upgrade. I do think it is, but still struggle getting the money for it. I would do it in a heartbeat if money were not the issue. I do use the 17-40 quite a bit, so it is not too wide, and the extra 4 degrees (I think) would not be huge, but would be welcome.



You and I are in the same boat. I'm not a huge sharpness nut, like I don't need to pixel peep all my shots or anything, but I've never been blown away by the 17-40 and the sharpness it produces, even in the middle of the frame. The micro contrast doesn't seem to be there either. Especially in comparison to other lenses I shoot that do get me excited (Sigma Art, 135L) and I know that I'd like to upgrade. So I'm keeping my eyes on the market both new and used for the new 16-35. I've gotten some really great shots with the 17-40 but sometimes I wonder if they'd just pop a bit more with the upgrade. This is kind of the one lens I feel like I'd like to get to "complete" my kit.

For those that have had both, do you find the larger size/weight of the new 16-35 f/4L to be much of a big deal? And I'm going to assume no one misses the 40mm on the long end.


----------



## slclick (Dec 8, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> SUNDOG04 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks everyone. Very informative answers. It does sound that most people are please with the better performance of the the 16-35 IS over the 17-40. As stated, only I can decided it is with the cost to upgrade. I do think it is, but still struggle getting the money for it. I would do it in a heartbeat if money were not the issue. I do use the 17-40 quite a bit, so it is not too wide, and the extra 4 degrees (I think) would not be huge, but would be welcome.
> ...



The 16-35 is no heavyweight, it's all engineering plastic and quite lighter than say the 24-70. The hood is shallow and has the nice click button feature as well. It's a win win. $824 is a bargain as well.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2016)

As others have said, the 16-35 f/4L IS is a comprehensively better tool than the 17-40 f/4L. The question is not whether it offers you value. It does, plain and simple. 

IS makes hiking a treat -- you can look at a host of ways, but I see it as latitude to keep ISO down. You can stop down to a landscape apertures in not stellar light and still net sharp shots handheld in the ISO 400 neighborhood instead of the 1600-3200 neighborhood. 

I also believe it to be a well designed lens w.r.t. slot-in filters -- the front filter threads were tucked as tight as possible to the front element and vignetting is largely a non-issue with the standard 4x6 system, which is no small feat for an UWA lens! 

But... (just playing devil's advocate here -- I love the f/4L IS)

For that same money, you could get an entire Lee holder setup, ND grads, Big Stopper, etc.

For that same money, you could get a killer featherweight hiking tripod, ball head and L-plate.

For that same money, you could get an entirely different focal length L lens to hike with.

For that same money, you could get a terrific backcountry photography bag (Rotation 360?), new tent, sleeping bag and Thermarest.

For that same money, you could travel to Banff, The Dolomites, Torres del Paine, etc. (depends on where you live) and have amazing vistas around every corner.

It's all about your priorities.

- A


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 8, 2016)

I made the 17-40 to 16-35 F4 L IS upgrade.

I rather like way the 17-40 renders colour - I always found that images had a richer, more vivid, quality to them. All I can say is that everything I liked about the 17-40 is as good or better with the 16-35 F4 L IS and it does not share the 17-40's faults/weaknesses. Wonderful colours, excellent sharpness = just a great lens!

Much as I liked the 17-40 the 16-35 F4 is the best pound for pound upgrade in Canon Land ;D


----------



## pwp (Dec 8, 2016)

I bought a 17-40 f/4 when they first shipped back in 2003. It was a bargain for what it delivered. It was pure mush wide open but from f/5.6 through to f/11 it was up to the task for any commercial project. It was foolishly replaced with a 16-35 f/2.8. It's only advantage was the fact it was f/2.8. From f/5.6 through to f/11 the old 17-40 f/4 outperformed the 16-35. I tried another 16-35 f/2.8 and this showed little improvement. I should have just kept the 17-40, as I rarely used it wide open.

When the 16-35 f/4is was announced with subsequent rave reviews it was a logical step to give it a try. My experience backs up the findings of reviewers worldwide. It's an absolute cracker of a lens, including strong performance wide open. Even if you never shoot wide open, the IS on this lens helps deliver appreciably more keepers. 

OP, if you only ever use your 17-40 stopped down and on a tripod, there is probably little to gain with a 16-35 f4is. But let's be clear, overall this is a huge upgrade an improvement over the 17-40. It's abilities and qualities may well open up creative avenues for you that you couldn't anticipate. This often happens with new equipment.

-pw


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2016)

pwp said:


> I bought a 17-40 f/4 when they first shipped back in 2003. It was a bargain for what it delivered. It was pure mush wide open but from f/5.6 through to f/11 it was up to the task for any commercial project. It was foolishly replaced with a 16-35 f/2.8.



Hate to break it to you, but the 17-40 f/4L was not replaced by the 16-35 f/2.8L II. 

In fact, the 17-40 f/4L _is still sold today._

- A


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a 17-40 f/4 when they first shipped back in 2003. It was a bargain for what it delivered. It was pure mush wide open but from f/5.6 through to f/11 it was up to the task for any commercial project. It was foolishly replaced with a 16-35 f/2.8.
> ...



I read that as he replaced his 17-40 with the 16-35. Perhaps you are jumping to conclusions.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 8, 2016)

Krob78 said:


> I have both and the EF 11-24mm as well. My copy of the 17-40 is particularly sharp, fell in love with it, it was my 2nd one, my first was good and a work horse but the 2nd one is amazing... That said, I picked up the 16-35 IS, not expecting much difference but wanting to try the IS because I was beginning to see some results in some of my images of a little shaking going on.. :
> 
> The 16-35 IS blew me away, I had no idea that an ultra wide could get any sharper than my excellent 17-40 copy! Additionally, what no one else has mentioned is that little extra focal length on the wide end is a huge difference to me, using this lens primarily for Real Estate work, it's allowing me to deliver much nicer, wider images to my clients.
> 
> ...


----------



## pwp (Dec 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a 17-40 f/4 when they first shipped back in 2003. It was a bargain for what it delivered. It was pure mush wide open but from f/5.6 through to f/11 it was up to the task for any commercial project. It was foolishly replaced with a 16-35 f/2.8.
> ...



Sorry Ahsanford, this may be trivial, errm...look before you leap. It may be _your_ turn for a fact check. I'm not seeing any reference to a 16-35 f/2.8L II in my post. Nore any suggestion that Canon replaced the 17-40 f/4 with the 16-35 f/2.8. 

I replaced a 17-40 with a 16-35 f/2.8.

Yes, a new 17-40 f/4 remains a current bargain buy. 8)

-pw


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 9, 2016)

pwp said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



Apologies, dude. That angle never crossed my mind. Wow. 

- A


----------



## pwp (Dec 9, 2016)

No worries. Maybe I could have been more explicit. 
Anyway it probably looked like an opportunity to use that funny Fact Check in Aisle 4 image!

-pw


----------



## YellowJersey (Dec 9, 2016)

I shot with the 17-40 f/4 for years and loved it; got some of my best shots with it. I have the 16-35mm f/4 IS and I really do like it, but it's also my most used lens. 

Whether it's worth switching to the 16-35mm f/4 IS depends on a number of things. 
Is it one of your most used lenses? If you shoot with it a lot, then I'd say go for it. 
Do you shoot handheld? The IS is going to be really nice if you shoot handheld. On a tripod it won't make any difference. 
Does the extra weight of the 16-35 bother you? The 17-40 is going to be a tad lighter.

If you don't use filters, I'd also check out the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC. It's big and heavy, but you're getting a 2.8 out of it, which could be handy, and it's roughly on par with the 16-35 f/4 IS in terms of price (at least where I live), and I'd swear the Tamron is sharper.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 9, 2016)

scottkinfw said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > I have both and the EF 11-24mm as well. My copy of the 17-40 is particularly sharp, fell in love with it, it was my 2nd one, my first was good and a work horse but the 2nd one is amazing... That said, I picked up the 16-35 IS, not expecting much difference but wanting to try the IS because I was beginning to see some results in some of my images of a little shaking going on.. :
> ...


Hey Ken.

If you had to choose over again, would you get the 11-24 or the 16-35 if the focal length of both were just fine for you work. In other words, which lens do you personally feel is superior?

Thanks.

Scott

Hey Scott, that's a great question! Tell you the truth, I can't bare to part with either of them, lol!! In my book of Real Estate work, the 11-24 is superior for me, without question. It gets so wide and keeps the edges not only sharp but keeps the lines so straight with an incredibly minimal amount of distortion, many images I don't even have to make distortion adjustments for. The 16-35 however has much more (significantly more) vignetting and it does have more distortion as well, though it's pretty well controlled for the most part. 

The 11-24 renders colors beautifully, and it's pretty fun to work with. It can get heavy though, depending on what the application is. I've taken it hiking before and it's a beast to carry around, especially if I've got my 100-400mm II in the bag... In those cases, I've started taking the 16-35 with me more so than the 11-24. I like the 11-24 better in Museums as well, though in some light is an issue but not terribly so. 

I really love both of these lenses and can't honestly say that I'd part with either of them, I found that although they cover just a small amount of the same focal length, the part they don't are equally important to each. Sometimes I use the 11-24 for a wider pano type of shot in landscape but prefer the 70-200mm f/2.8 for true pano work. 

I find my 11-24 is sharper than my 16-35 also, that said the 16-35 is plenty sharp. Additionally, as mentioned previously if I'm shooting real estate, I like the focal length of 12-14mm as the sweet spot, too wide and the rooms are giving a look that just doesn't portray the truth for my clients, buyer's when they actually get to the property, so I work hard to give the rooms an open, nice size look, without causing them to look like the size of a football field when it's the size of a coat closet... 

Anyway to your question, I'm not sure Scott, I love them both and use them both. The weight of the 11-24 can be taxing at times but if I'm shooting Real estate, it's normally on my tripod, so that's not too bad. I do tend to baby it more as well, though it's a beast of a lens, it's mighty pricey and so I'm probably extra careful with it but then again, I'm pretty careful with all my gear... I'd recommend renting one for a day or two, there is a learning curve to it as well, which some have mentioned in other threads more related to this conversation. 

Hope that helps in some way, sorry so long, not trying to hijack the thread.. ??? All in all, to me, the 11-24mm is the superior lens without question but that doesn't mean it's the end all to end all, the 16-35 is a hero for sure and worth every penny and worthy of much praise as well.. 

All the best!
Ken 8)


----------



## tonblom (Dec 9, 2016)

I upgraded and had a very good copy of the 17-40 with excellent center sharpness. I used the wide end more, so I don't mis the 36-40 range and the 16mm is more important to me. 

Upgrading depends on which range you use. You can check you photo's for that. Everything else about IS and overal sharpness has been reviewed. The bigger, better placement and smoothness of the zoom ring is an added bonus


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Dec 10, 2016)

Excellent posts and a few refreshing ideas. The 17-40 is probably the most used lens and eventually I will replace it with the 16-35 when it hopefully is reduced in price again. It would be a luxury, not a necessity. The 17-40 images look excellent and although the IS would be useful, I do carry the 24 2.8 IS lens and it is nice and light for hiking. Possibly more important would be to fill the space between the 17-40 and my 100L macro. But that is also my least used area.


----------



## cycleraw (Dec 10, 2016)

I replaced my 17-40 L with the 16-35 L IS about 8 months ago. Why? Well when I got back from a trip to Arches National Park and began looking and printing the photos I just didn't like the photos taken with the 17-40 L as much as the photos taken with the other lenses I used on the trip (primarily the 28-70 2.8L II, 70-200 2.8 II and a few with the Sigma 50 Art). The main issue was corner sharpness, even stopped down. The 16-35 L IS fixes this issue and to me it was money well spent.


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2016)

So basically the verdict is in unless you take your verdicts from devils advocates.


----------



## Zv (Dec 13, 2016)

Sorry a bit late to this thread but since I went through the same upgrade path as OP is thinking about and with similar gear I wanted to just add a little. 

I had the 17-40L for the longest time and when the 16-35 f/4 came out I decided to wait until the price came down. That took a while but it was OK as I was fairly content with my 6D and 17-40 set up. After much deliberation and great advice from my fellow CR forum members I decided to upgrade. Best decision ever! 

The 16-35 f/4 is amazing and is absolutely worth every penny. The IS alone is worth it for me. Sharp all the way to the corners and a much more modern look to images (dunno how to describe it). Possibly the last UWA I will ever need. I sold the 17-40, though it was a tough sell and I didn't get all that much for it sadly but still glad it's gone. And I actually liked the 17-40, it was my workhorse! I also eventually ended up selling my Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (16mm is wide enough for me). 

Is it an absolute necessity? No. Will it make you happy? Oh yeah! Better images? Hmmm well it will certainly inspire you to go out and use it! Maybe see how long you can handhold it an still get sharp images, that's a fun game to play for sure! 

If you can afford just go for it.


----------

