# 17-40 l advice vers the 16-35l 4.0



## beforeEos Camaras (Apr 9, 2016)

hello all

right now I have a 5dmk3 and I am using a 20-35 3.5 -4.5 usm as my uwa lens

before that I used the 10-22 efs lens with my 70D 

the 17-40 has a price value over the 16-35 is 4. image stabling is something I don't need on a uwa. as I use a tripod for landscape.

its more for a all around walk around lens. I use the 20-35 for that reason but its old and I need to retire the lens no lens hood most likely no repair parts as well.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 9, 2016)

I can't comment on the 17-40 since I've never used one. I do own a 16-35 f/4 IS and love it! Excellent optically, a terrific landscape and walk-around lens. I find image stabilization handy in low light situations where I don't have my tripod with me or can't use one (indoor tours, etc.). I've found I can take sharp pictures of still subjects at down to 1/4 second, which I find pretty amazing. 

Using the TDP lens image quality tool, the 16-35 is much sharper away from the center of the frame.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. To me the 16-35 is probably worth the additional $200-250 in cost, but that decision is different for everybody.


----------



## slclick (Apr 9, 2016)

16-35 f/4 for certain. Better copy to copy variation, sharper corners, sharper centers, wider, newer coatings etc. This is an easy choice.


----------



## digital-jesus (Apr 9, 2016)

And for those like me who already have 17-40 ? justifies the purchase for landscape photography ?


----------



## jprusa (Apr 9, 2016)

I have both , the 17-40 was good lens but the 16-35 is sharper. and I like it much better.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 9, 2016)

digital-jesus said:


> And for those like me who already have 17-40 ? justifies the purchase for landscape photography ?



My vote would be no, I'd hold on to the 17-40. 

Unless of course you got a $1k burning a hole in your pocket, then why not!


----------



## TeT (Apr 9, 2016)

I love/loved the 20 35 L; that was such an awesome lens.

Looks like used from reputable sellers on eBay in auction style listings with bag and hood the 17 40 goes $400 to $450

of course you have buyer protection with eBay. so you have a little time to check it out and make sure it is all good.

That is a good (and fair) price for that lens, don't spend $600


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2016)

digital-jesus said:


> And for those like me who already have 17-40 ? justifies the purchase for landscape photography ?



I'd have to say yes, the 16-35 f4 IS is one of Canon's best lenses, it truthfully is, and it marks their first real high quality UWA zoom.



dilbert said:


> Don't waste your money on buying a 17-40/f4L.
> 
> Well maybe buy one if it is like $200 or so.



Garbage, I just sold a used one with a few chips in the hood mount ring but complete with the box, hood, bag, and all original packaging for $425 off CL, it got a lot of calls too.

The 17-40 is a reasonable lens it is just that the 16-35 f4 IS is a much better one, and the used prices reflect that, if you are in the $400 lens market you are not in the $800 lens market.


----------



## drob (Apr 9, 2016)

I grabbed the 16-35 f4 IS and love it, very sharp. I didn't want to purchase new though so I held off and found it on Canons refurbished site. If you have the patience you might want to hold out and search there.


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 9, 2016)

Most of us stop down considerably for landscape. Stopped down, the advantage of the 16-35 is a bit less: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

At half the price the 17-40 looks like a deal.

If you'd rather be free from a tripod however, the 16-35 is the way to go.


----------



## Sabaki (Apr 9, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd have to say yes, the 16-35 f4 IS is one of Canon's best lenses, it truthfully is, and *it marks their first real high quality UWA zoom.*



+1!


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 9, 2016)

> the 17-40 has a price value over the 16-35 is 4. image stabling is something I don't need on a uwa. as I use a tripod for landscape.



I've owned and used both lenses exclusively for tripod mounted landscape images. On full frame the corner sharpness differential between the two is considerable, I didn't even need to do a side by side comparison to come to the conclusion that the 16-35mm was a keeper. If you don't need an extra stop of light for low light landscape photography (star trials, milk way shots etc), I would recommend it without hesitation.


----------



## AdamBotond (Apr 9, 2016)

I also have owned both. As it has been said, the 16-35 F4 L IS is far superior in every aspect. It is the ultimate wide-angle lens in my kit. If you can afford it, go for it! However, I found it too wide even at 35mm for general walk-around. For that purpose, I would rather go with a 24-70 F2.8 (version I), which is more versatile in my opinion.

Adam 



beforeEos Camaras said:


> hello all
> 
> right now I have a 5dmk3 and I am using a 20-35 3.5 -4.5 usm as my uwa lens
> 
> ...


----------



## slclick (Apr 9, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> digital-jesus said:
> 
> 
> > And for those like me who already have 17-40 ? justifies the purchase for landscape photography ?
> ...


Canon lenses holds their value. If you have the original box, hood, caps and bag/case you can usually get at least the refurb price. Sometimes I make more than what I paid. I write this since there is little to no reason to keep a 17-40 when picking up the 16-35 f/4. Fund glass with glass.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 9, 2016)

slclick said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > digital-jesus said:
> ...



Valid point about resale, that would help offset the costs of the upgrade. And I'll admit, as a 17-40 owner I will keep my eyes open and some day I'll probably upgrade.

However in terms of stopped down landscape shooting? This video/review doing a direct comparison of the two really made me think you'll do just fine with a 17-40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7n1L1QCjqU


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Apr 9, 2016)

thank you all for the input.

now I got to decide if I want to reach for the 16-35 or just go with the 17-40

I find that 35 is good for me as a walk around as I tend not to take candid's of fokes more vistas and passing crowds.


----------



## cycleraw (Apr 10, 2016)

I owned the 17-40L for several years and then a few months ago I got a 16-35 f/4L IS loaner from CPS and WOW. I quickly sold my 17-40L for $425 and purchased the 16-35 f4/L IS. I found the center sharpness about the same but the corners are way better.


----------



## pwp (Apr 10, 2016)

slclick said:


> 16-35 f/4 for certain. Better copy to copy variation, sharper corners, sharper centers, wider, newer coatings etc. This is an easy choice.


+1...yep the 16-35 f/4is tends to have better everything. Note the superior copy to copy variation.

OP, you do say that walk-around is one of the functions for your new lens. This presumes no tripod. As a full time photographer who has used the dreadful old 17-35L (introduced 1996) followed by 8 years with the 17-40 f/4, followed by a few disappointing years with the 16-35 f/2.8II. A couple of months ago I picked up the new 16-35 f/4is. What slclick says is true. It's a highly dependable lens. Read the reviews. They're overwhelmingly positive.

The 17-40 f/4 (introduced 13 years ago in 2003) remains good value in some respects, but is really showing its age now. There may be rare copies around that are actually sharp wide open but most deliver pure mush at f/4. One click down to f/5.6 and it's very capable right through to f/11. I tended to think of mine as a 17-40 f/5.6. 

The clincher for me came from a colleague who shoots a lot of difficult aerial projects. The client needed dusk aerials of their casino with the giant gas flares lit up, but showing the adjacent river and the city skyline as well. So by implication it was a wide shot. Shooting out of even a very smooth helicopter at dusk is going to be a huge challenge. As a form of insurance he shot with three bodies. One with 24-70 f/2.8II, one with 16-35 f/2.8II and a third body with a loaned 16-35 f/4is. And guess what? Even giving away a stop in brightness, the 16-35 f/4is convincingly saved the day (and a _lot _of money). 

Get the picture from this and other posts? The 16-35 f/4is is a class act. For the first time in twenty years I have a UWA zoom that I can trust wide open for projects from very discriminating clients. If you can't afford it, save for it.

-pw


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Apr 10, 2016)

pwp said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > 16-35 f/4 for certain. Better copy to copy variation, sharper corners, sharper centers, wider, newer coatings etc. This is an easy choice.
> ...



thank you for your reply yes it will be a walk around and I do listen to the advice given new the 17-40 is 749 usd this month and the 16-35l is 4.0 is 999 or a difference of 250 usd plus 7% tax.
I have a 28-135 I can use as a trade in. so when I travel to cape cod on Friday ill have a new lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > digital-jesus said:
> ...



You clearly know zero about used lens prices. I sold mine within a few hours because it was under priced, here are a few recent eBay SOLD listings.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 10, 2016)

If you are looking for a new lens, I'd buy the 16-35mm F/4. However, if you stop down to f/8 or smaller apertures, there is no need to buy a expensive lens, just use a coke bottle (All lenses are pretty much the same at f/11, and close at f/8.)

What you are paying for is excellent performance at the widest aperture along with good construction and improved consistency of AF. If you are at f/11 or f/16, keep your 20-35 mm lens.


----------



## ins0mniac (Apr 10, 2016)

I used to love the EF-S 10-22 on my T2i. After I switched to 6D, I got the 17-40. I was somewhat surprised to see the clear improvement in IQ as I felt that the 10-22 was "L quality". Admittedly the IQ difference could partly be due the FF sensor. I was pretty happy with it. However, there came a time when I was missing shots due to not being able to use tripod in some situations, for example, on family outings with a toddler  . That's when I decided to upgrade to 16-35 f/4. I sold mine for $500 on ebay, and waited for a sale on Canon refurbished store and got it for $815. I found sharpness better than the 17-40 everywhere in the frame, although it's hard to notice in small sizes. However, what really amazed me is the ability to get sharp shots at 1/4 sec!! Someone told me that you can photograph waterfalls without a tripod with this lens. Can't wait to try that.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 10, 2016)

I agree with others, if buying brand new there is no decision, pick up the 16-35 for the extra ~200 bucks. However, if you're willing to go check out the secondary market you'll quickly find that the 17-40 can be had for pretty cheap, 400 bucks for example.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Occasionally people might bid too high on eBay, but it is asinine to say _"people buy things on eBay for more than they are worth"_, clearly the price they pay is what it is worth to them! And the images I showed you illustrate that to many people the 17-40 is worth $450-525 secondhand.

Besides, I said I sold mine on CL, where people don't 'pay too much'. Clearly those in the real world don't agree with your opinion.

By the way, how much have you actually shot with the 17-40 on a full frame camera, or is your opinion based on no real world experience at all?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 10, 2016)

digital-jesus said:


> And for those like me who already have 17-40 ? justifies the purchase for landscape photography ?


If you are a pixel peeper, the 16-35mm/4L IS is the clear winner from mid-frame to borders, especially at wider apertures. 
the 17-40mm is a better value lens but is not perfect. For most uses the 17-40mm will be enough but I replaced my 17-40mm by the 16-35mm and I haven't look back because it is very fast AF, accurate, great color rendition and offers better borders sharpness


----------



## Zv (Apr 10, 2016)

I currently have both 17-40L and the 16-35 f/4. I've been trying to sell my 17-40 but that's another story. 

The 16-35 f/4 is far superior to the 17-40 in many ways. Yeah the 17-40 is cheaper and great value for those on a bit of a budget. However if stretching finances is an option I'd recommend going for the 16-35. 

Corner sharpness is impressive, even without pixel peeping you can notice it. At 16mm it performs beautifully which is great as that's where it gets used most. Also 16mm vs 17mm - as a wide angle fan it makes a difference!


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 10, 2016)

> Corner sharpness is impressive, even without pixel peeping you can notice it. At 16mm it performs beautifully which is great as that's where it gets used most. Also 16mm vs 17mm - as a wide angle fan it makes a difference!



Exactly. if your serious about landscape photography corner sharpness is of paramount importance. For that reason alone the 16-35mm is a no brainier in my opinion.


----------



## GuyF (Apr 10, 2016)

Had the 17-40 for a few years and got some great shots but sold it for the 16-35 f4 which is head and shoulders above it in terms of image quality. Also don't underestimate the benefits of IS on a UWA lens!


----------



## d (Apr 10, 2016)

I briefly owned and used the 17-40, and found it to be an average performer, selling it after a few months. While it may well be "good enough" for many purposes, I think it's worth paying a bit more and getting the 16-35 f/4 IS, especially if you're planning on keeping it longer-term.

d.


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 10, 2016)

I've used both, only on a *crop* (7D) body admittedly but even there the superior IQ of the 16-35 IS is evident. The 17-40 had a slight corner mushiness and a little visible CA at the wide end, which is virtually absent on the 16-35 IS. Also, I've found the IS fantastic for low light shots- both inside and outside at dusk!


----------



## Ladislav (Apr 10, 2016)

If the goal is to have a walk around lens than investment into IS is really worth it. I love my 16-35 L IS and I use it as the main city walk around lens but I prefer 24-70 as a walk around in country side.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 10, 2016)

I got back into SLR photography with the 10D back in 2003, and bought a (then recently-announced) 17-40L within a month to replace the 24-85 kit lens. I paid $770 at a local retail store, and got a very good copy. Used it on the 10D and then a 20D as my walk-around lens, and was quite satisfied with it.

When I moved to full frame with the 5D in 2007, I found the 17-40 less impressive in the outer edges of the enlarged frame. Still, I continued to use it, as I didn't need anything faster, there really wasn't a better quality UWA zoom available, and I don't shoot UWA all that often.

I sold that 17-40, still in excellent condition, with all original accessories and packaging, about 2 years ago for $600 on Craigslist. The buyer contacted me a few weeks later (after he had taken the lens with him on a trip to Europe) to tell me it was one of the best transactions he had ever had on CL.

Six months later (end of 2014), I picked up a new 16-35/4L IS in a Canon Price Watch sale for $996. It's still my least-used zoom (I confess to a bit of G.A.S.), but I find the experience of using it more satisfying when using its IS, and the results appreciably better than with the 17-40.

To the O.P.: If you can afford it, and you're going to keep the lens "forever," go ahead and spring for the 16-35. If funds are really tight (since you have your 20-35 to shoot with in the meantime), wait for a sale, a rebate or a refurb. If you go for the 17-40 and then find yourself displeased with the quality of images you get from it, you'll eventually move up to the 16-35, anyway.


----------



## gregorywood (Apr 10, 2016)

I've had both lenses. I had the 17-40 for almost two years using it on a 6D mostly and sometimes on the 7D. I liked the price point, the range being that it went to 40mm, and generally speaking it was good for it's intended use. In my world, that is some landscape, some walk around city shooting and any situation where i needed width but didn't have much depth space to work with. 

I had read a lot of material and reviews and decided to make the investment. What struck me first was that the 16-35 seemed a bit quicker to focus. I like the way it felt physically and there were several notable improvements. On the output side, comparing similar types of shots, the IQ of the 16-35 is sharper, especially out in the corners. The IS is a great asset when it's needed. I can shoot handheld down to some very low shutter speeds (1/15 and less) and retain sharpness. It also seems to have a bit better contrast. Overall, I find the images more appealing.

The 17-40 is not a bad lens at all. I was on the fence about tossing another $500 at a lens of a similar design, although improved - I couldn't quantify if the improvements were enough. I've had it for nearly a year now and I don't regret the purchase. 

Just my experience...hope that helps in some way.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 10, 2016)

I've had both lens too.
The 17-40mm was a great lens while I was using it. It's rock solid.
I just found the 16-35 F4 IS even better. The IS is very useful for handheld work.
I wasn't expecting this. I thought IS wouldn't be of much real use at such a wide angle but it is beneficial.
The 17-40mm is reasonable sharp, certainly very sharp in the centre and a little softer at the edges.
The 16-35mm is sharper all-round. The margins are small but do make a difference.
You won't go to far wrong with either lens but if you can afford it the 16-35mm is the better lens.


----------



## markhbfindlay (Apr 10, 2016)

I would get the 16-35mm F4. The extra 1mm at the wide end is not to be forgotten about.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 10, 2016)

*Re: 17-40L advice vs. the 16-35/4L IS*



markhbfindlay said:


> I would get the 16-35mm F4. The extra 1mm at the wide end is not to be forgotten about.



Also not to be forgotten about are the lens hoods. 

It seems like a small point -- and one I forgot to include in my previous post -- but the hood on the 17-40 is (IMO) atrocious: very wide and shallow; difficult to efficiently get the lens into a bag or backpack with the hood reverse-mounted, and difficult to safely pack the unattached hood without worrying about it getting broken. 

The 16-35's hood, by contrast, is narrower and deeper; it's much easier to pack the lens with its hood reverse-mounted.

I can't speak to the relative effectiveness of either hood vs. no hood, as I always shoot with the hood attached, both for shading and front element protection (even when, as in the case of the 17-40, both seem to be minimal).


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Apr 17, 2016)

thank you all for the input. I have gone with the 16-35l 4.0 is lens

even the store where I buy my gear also recommended the 16-35 and I had a full hands on with the lens.

it was the right choice. the lens rounds out my range I now can shoot 16-400 with 3 lenses


----------



## d (Apr 17, 2016)

Nice, glad you got what you were after! Post some pics from it when you get a chance.

Cheers,
d.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Apr 17, 2016)

d said:


> Nice, glad you got what you were after! Post some pics from it when you get a chance.
> 
> Cheers,
> d.



I will the lens is fantastic eps with sunsets a very small amount of lens flare.


----------



## slclick (Apr 17, 2016)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > Nice, glad you got what you were after! Post some pics from it when you get a chance.
> ...



It also makes great sunstars at f/16


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Apr 17, 2016)

slclick said:


> beforeEos Camaras said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...





sunset by joseph kelly, on Flickr


----------



## slclick (Apr 17, 2016)

sweet star
red butte gardens, slc, utah


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Apr 18, 2016)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> thank you all for the input. I have gone with the 16-35l 4.0 is lens
> 
> even the store where I buy my gear also recommended the 16-35 and I had a full hands on with the lens.
> 
> it was the right choice. the lens rounds out my range I now can shoot 16-400 with 3 lenses



You made the right choice. Much as I liked my 17-40 for many years the 16-35 F4 is a significantly better lens in all departments and even equals/exceeds the wonderful (to my eyes) colours that the 17-40 gives.
Congrats on you 16-35 (I am delighted with mine) - it will be a long time before you will even consider replacing it!


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Apr 18, 2016)

I have the 17-40 for a number of years and supplemented it with the 24 IS lens. There are times I prefer a more compact lens and prefer this to use with neutral density filters for water falls and the 2.8 is a bit better and sharper for night photography. Overall I think the 17-40 is a decent lens, could be better in the corners for landscape work.

That said, buying now, I would definitely get the 16-35 IS lens over the 17-40. The IS is useful to me, regardless of what others say about not needed on a wide angle. Overall the 16-35 is a vast improvement (from what I read) over the 17-40. Upgrading from the 17-40 is second on my photo equipment updating. Adding a 14mm is priority, but also unaffordable at the moment.


----------

