# Why pick 16-35 f2.8 over 17-40 f4



## fallenflowers (Aug 24, 2012)

I have a 17-40 f4 on my 5d3 and i truly love this lens, little bit of corner softness but other than i love it. 

I always have it on my tripod when shooting landscape, i don't shoot portrait with this lens- exclusively for landscape, i must say it is worth every penny but i have never used the 16-35 f2.8 and curious of the performance, i wanted to know in which ways it is better than the 17-40 and is it worth paying double the price?

If anyone of you used 16-35 or have both lenses that can share some of your experiences and benefits of have 16-35 over 17-40 aside from aperture because i always have it on f8-f11.

many thanks 
Brian


----------



## pwp (Aug 24, 2012)

I'm in a virtually identical circumstance to you fallenflowers, 5D3 & 17-40 and wondering if a 16-35 f/2.8II is going to deliver tangible benefits over the 17-40 f/4. I would only use the 17-40 wide open in emergency situations, so if the 16-35 was going to deliver commercially viable files at f/2.8 for example, it may subtlety change my shooting style.

In tests I've done with the 17-40 vs 16-35 f/2.8II the IQ is line ball from around f/5.6 through to f/11. So if you're shooting style puts you into this range with the 17-40, why change? Personally I'll be allocating my next lens capex towards the 24-70 f/2.8II when it eventually ships.

Landscapes only? Keep the 17-40 f/4 and spend the extra money on getting yourself to some great locations.

-PW


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 24, 2012)

Brian,

At f/8 to f/11? There is no difference. Do not buy the 16-35L for landscapes over your current 17-40L. There is no difference really, in IQ. If you were considering something like the 24L, then yeah, it might be worth it, but the zooms are equal at those apertures and you'll be disappointed in the lack of improvement in IQ if you buy it.


----------



## fallenflowers (Aug 24, 2012)

Thanks pwp and bdunbar79 for the informative decision. i will use the extra cash for something else.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Aug 24, 2012)

I have owned both, started with the 17-40 then replaced it with the 16-35 II. I was using a crop sensor at the time; different effective focal length. I made the switch because I was looking for a faster lens indoors and also wanted improved subject isolation when shooting wide open. The 16-25 II did that for me.

After getting the 5DIII I have since replaced the 16-35 II with the 24mm 1.4 II. Much, much better than either IMO.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 24, 2012)

fallenflowers said:


> I have a 17-40 f4 on my 5d3 and i truly love this lens, little bit of corner softness but other than i love it.
> 
> I always have it on my tripod when shooting landscape, i don't shoot portrait with this lens- exclusively for landscape, i must say it is worth every penny but i have never used the 16-35 f2.8 and curious of the performance, i wanted to know in which ways it is better than the 17-40 and is it worth paying double the price?
> 
> ...


I have the EF 17-40L (but this was being used only on 7D & 60D crop framed cameras). Last month I bought the 5D MK III and about a week ago I got the EF 16-35L (got it at a good price with the current Canon rebate). Anyway, if you are using 17-40L only for landscapes, there is no advantage other than the 1mm difference (mind you, you will notice a difference in the angle of view). 

On my copy of EF16-35L, 17mm is slightly wider than EF 17-40L. Also, 17-40L has more barrel distortion at 17mm then the 16-35L at 16mm. The reason I bought 16-35mmL is also for video ... the shallow DOF of 16-35L adds an amazing effect which 17-40L cannot match. Put your subject in the centre foreground, with the landscape on the background, and shoot video at f/2.8 - the effect if just awesome. 
As for me I prefer the 16-35mmL over the 17-40L anyday because my needs are not limited only to landscape photography. I will be selling my 17-40L within this week ... it served me well for over 3 years.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 24, 2012)

Well you pay for the F2.8. If you are shooting in low light, interiors, gigs etc It is a good option but I dont think worth double on the 17-40mm. But if you need it specifically for those areas then its invaluable.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 24, 2012)

If he's only going to be using it for landscapes at f/8-f/11, then buying the 16-35L II lens will be a very, very disappointing purchase over the 17-40L he already has.


----------



## Cali_PH (Aug 24, 2012)

Besides the other points others have mentioned, there could be additional costs for you with the 16-35. It's 82mm, not 77mm. If you use circular polarizers, grad/ND filters, etc. you may have to by additional adapters or filters of different sizes, depending on your current accessories.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 24, 2012)

fallenflowers said:


> I have a 17-40 f4 on my 5d3 and i truly love this lens, little bit of corner softness but other than i love it.
> 
> I always have it on my tripod when shooting landscape, i don't shoot portrait with this lens- exclusively for landscape, i must say it is worth every penny but i have never used the 16-35 f2.8 and curious of the performance, i wanted to know in which ways it is better than the 17-40 and is it worth paying double the price?
> 
> ...



I went with the 16-35 II for the better corner performance and the extra stop of light.


----------



## markko (Aug 24, 2012)

fallenflowers said:


> If anyone of you used 16-35 or have both lenses that can share some of your experiences and benefits of have 16-35 over 17-40 aside from aperture because i always have it on f8-f11.



I used the 16-35 many years with great pleasure on my 1.3-crop-1Dmk3. After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with the full frame 5Dmk3 I started to notice the softness of the 16-35 at the borders of the image.

After I went to a camera-shop and shot some test photos with the 16-35, 17-40 and the 24-105, I bought the 17-40 as it performed much better on the 5Dmk3 (sharper). The 16-35 is catching dust right now... 

Cheers,

Mark.


----------



## risc32 (Aug 24, 2012)

i had the 17-40, bought a 16-35, and then sold the 17-40. i find the 16-35 to have somewhat better IQ, but the main reason i bought it was that i do a lot of shooting in dimly lit areas and the extra stop is a big help. It's handy also because at these wide focal lengths i can actually use 2.8 and not have nearly everything out of focus due to the larger depth of field. i figured i wouldn't notice the difference between 16mm and 17mm but i did. not huge, but i did notice it. last thing, i felt that a lens for (around) 2x the price for 2x the light gathering ability was a pretty good deal actually, as most of the time the jump from f4 to f2.8 on a top lens costs 4-5x as much. i've never heard anyone look at that that way, but that's the way i see it. i really had no complaints with the 17-40, it was fine, the 16-35 is just better.


----------



## fallenflowers (Aug 24, 2012)

after reading the comments, i am going to stick with my beloved 17-40, thanks everyone for the input.


----------

