# 16-35 I vs. 17-40



## Jim Saunders (Sep 1, 2013)

Any thoughts? I have a line on a 16-35 I that I can't ignore. I process everything through LR5. The 16-35 II is an option but for half the price I don't see how I lose much.

Jim


----------



## deletemyaccount (Sep 1, 2013)

There is good discussion in this thread for the 16-35

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15319.0

Also check out Justin's review here.

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/


----------



## wayno (Sep 1, 2013)

I believe the 17-40 is superior to the 16-35 version 1. The 17-40 is also supposedly very much in the same ballpark as the 16-35 II, with the exception of the stop and a fraction more wide angle.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 1, 2013)

camerabug said:


> There is good discussion in this thread for the 16-35
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15319.0
> 
> ...



I appreciate it, but both of those revolve around the version II lens; I've tried one and liked it but so far I don't have a compelling reason to spend twice the money on one.

Jim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2013)

I'd say 16-35 II > 17-40 > 16-35 I.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Sep 1, 2013)

Stick with the 17-40. I have one and it is a workhorse.


----------



## monkeyhand (Sep 1, 2013)

Do you need the extra stop? Also consider what you'll do if it breaks and no one has the parts for an out of production lens.


----------



## wayno (Sep 1, 2013)

JumboShrimp said:


> Stick with the 17-40. I have one and it is a workhorse.



Agree. Excellent lens for the price. Hardly use it at f4. If I did I'd probably consider the 16-35 II.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 1, 2013)

monkeyhand said:


> Do you need the extra stop? Also consider what you'll do if it breaks and no one has the parts for an out of production lens.



Good point, among others; I have a line on a 17-40 too, if I miss that I'll consider how badly I need that extra stop. Thanks for all the input!

Jim


----------



## Harv (Sep 2, 2013)

Just to shore up what others have said, I owned both lenses. I sold the 16-35 and kept the 17-40. I found it to be noticeably sharper than the copy of the 16-35 I had.

Personally, I think the 17-40 is probably the best 'L' bargain out there.


----------



## tron (Sep 2, 2013)

It's not exactly what you asked but still interesting (16-35 2.8 I vs. 16-35 2.8 II)

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/16-35/index.htm


----------



## pwp (Sep 2, 2013)

Jim Saunders said:


> Any thoughts? I have a line on a 16-35 I that I can't ignore. I process everything through LR5. The 16-35 II is an option but for half the price I don't see how I lose much.


Jim, you could lose a lot. The 16-35 f/2.8I is, ahem, a piece of shirt...The 17-40 is far better in most respects.

I recently switched from a 17-40 to a 16-35II. It's a better lens but not by much. After f/5.6 there is not much between them. At f/4 the 17-40 is barely adequate in the center and rubbish at the edges, but improves enormously with a couple of clicks down. The 16-35II is also barely adequate in the center wide open, but even one click down lifts the game to useful commercial quality. None of them can be described as stellar.

Seriously, avoid the 16-35I...it's almost certain to disappoint. Some fortunate photographer may post that they have good copies. They're either in a very lucky minority, they are deluding themselves or are content with mushy files.

BTW be aware that the 16-35II is big and heavy and requires 82mm filters.

-PW


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 2, 2013)

pwp said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > Any thoughts? I have a line on a 16-35 I that I can't ignore. I process everything through LR5. The 16-35 II is an option but for half the price I don't see how I lose much.
> ...



Thanks for the input. I rented a 16-35 II and liked it just fine, I'm just not sure I want to spend that kind of money when a 17-40 looks like most of the performance for half the money.

Jim


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 2, 2013)

For I at least the question is now answered; I got a great deal on a 17-40, and if I really need that extra stop in the future then I'll worry about spending an awful lot more money. Thanks for all the insight!

Jim


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 2, 2013)

I don't have a horse in the race, but I'm surprised at how disrespected the original 16-35 is. I'm also surprised at how respected the 17-40 is. I learn something new everyday.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 2, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I don't have a horse in the race, but I'm surprised at how disrespected the original 16-35 is. I'm also surprised at how respected the 17-40 is. I learn something new everyday.



I think it's part about expectations, especially when the other one is twice the money, you'd expect plenty more from that. Also you'd expect plenty more from F2.8 compared to F4.0. If it don't deliver, then it's not the winner.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2013)

tpatana said:


> I think it's part about expectations, especially when the other one is twice the money...you'd expect plenty more from F2.8 compared to F4.0.



Twice the money, twice the light.


----------



## pwp (Sep 2, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I don't have a horse in the race, but I'm surprised at how disrespected the original 16-35 is. I'm also surprised at how respected the 17-40 is. I learn something new everyday.


The 16-35I shipped in September 2001, still very early in digital history. The MkII shipped in April 2007. That's a pretty short life for a Canon L lens; something of an acknowledgement by Canon of the MkI shortcomings.

Prior to the 16-35 MkI was the greatly unloved 17-35 f/2.8L which shipped in April 1996. My expensive copy was a shocker, even on film bodies. On my original 1Ds it was not useable for commercial work. 

So when the 17-40 shipped in 2003 to very favorable reviews, I pounced on one which I used daily on projects for fussy clients for ten years. Only a few months ago I switched to the 16-35 MkII. To be honest, I could have saved my money. The new lens isn't a great deal better, especially as I tend to use ultra-wides somewhere between f/5.6 & f/11. 

The 17-40 is a classic, unchanged for over ten years it's one of the true bargains of the Canon L range.

-PW


----------



## degies (Sep 2, 2013)

I had the 17-40 and it is a an awesome lens. I sold mine to get my 24-70II , but every time I am out there I miss it and I need something a bit wider. I am thinking of getting one again, but I am considering the 16-35 II
I like doing sunrises or sunsets and want to try some astrophotography and I think that extra stop will be worth it. I agree for most daytime stuff the F7-f11 is where the 17-40 shine, but for low light that 2.8 must be worth the extra cash

Does anybody here use the 16-35 for sunrise sunset or night time shoots?


----------

