# 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4



## pwp (Feb 20, 2012)

I've been using a 17-40 f/4 for commercial work since it was first released in 2003. At the time it absolutely creamed the unloved original 16-35 f/2.8 from 2001, especially when hooked up to the 1Ds from around the same period.

It's been good but frankly the 17-40 isn't satisfying me the way it used to. I'd like to hear from photographers who have had both the 17-40 f/4L and the 16-35 f/2.8L II. 

The newer lens is going to be a clear winner at f/4 but how close are they in reality when shooting at f/8 and f/11? 
My bodies are FF (soon to be 1DX) and 1D4.

Paul Wright


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2012)

In the center at narrow apertures, not much difference. In the corners, the 17-40 is still a bit soft even when stopped down, while the 16-35 II is sharp there. 

The downside to the 16-35 II is the 82mm filter thread, but hey, at least it matches the new 24-70!


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 20, 2012)

Few days ago, I was checking the reviews for TS-e 17mm and saw a few image comparisons of the lens with 16-35mm f/2.8 II and 17-40mm f/4. Of the latter two, 16-35 mkII seems considerably sharper there in many apertures...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-17mm-f-4-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

edit: sorry the comparison I was referring to was under TS-E 24mm - Comparison is available on the above link too though. Naturally @ 17mm and 24 mm respectively...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## akiskev (Feb 20, 2012)

16-35's flare is way worse than 17-40's


----------



## LACityPhotoCom (Feb 21, 2012)

Take it from me. I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2006 and have owned two 16-35 2.8 IIs, and probably half a dozen 17-40Ls over time shot on full frame 5D mark I and Mark II bodies as well as Rebels and a 40D.

The 17-40L and 16-35LII are optically Canon's best ultra-wide zooms. They both perform equally as far as sharpness goes and both look identical stopped down. (the photo on the front page of my site was shot with the 17-40 and 5D2 and even at 1900 px wide, that image is super sharp corner to corner. Shot at F/22 too! 

The 16-35 Mark II shines obviously in low light and wide open is SUPER SUPER sharp in the center (excellent for casual/fun portraits) it's just a JOY to use in ALL situations whereas the 17-40L is a joy to use in SOME situations. the 17-40L is softish wide open especially in the corners. the 16-35LII shows excellent center sharpness wide open and good in the corners. 

Is it worth the extra 7-800 bucks? YES YES YES. I am so happy with my 16-35L II and it's going to stay with me likely forever.


----------



## birdman (Mar 3, 2012)

the 16-35 gets bashed so much because of price premium. The 17-40 is pretty close at f/8 and smaller. 

Samples vary just like with any glass. My 17-40 is decent, but mushy in corners even at small f stops. I rented 16-35 and I swear it was better in the corners, definitely below f/8.0. 

I would hold out and see if anything gets released this year. The Tokina 17-35/4.0 i supposed to be really solid with nearly ZERO distortion!! to me, it looks close to both of your mentioned lens. 

And lastly, there are two Zeiss 21mm Distagons on ebay right now for 1,485 OBO, slightly used. I am strongly tempted to buy one. If they will take $1,300 shipped i just might pull trigger. Used 17-40L anyone?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 4, 2012)

Wide angle lenses seem to be a weak spot in Canon's line up for FF bodies. They are good, but...

I sold my 17-40 L and ended up with a small cheap tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that cost me $150. I like it much better than the zoom, even though its not perfect.

Canon's TS-E 17mm is supurb, but MF and $$$$.

Of course, if you have a crop body, just get the 10-22mm zoom.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Mar 8, 2012)

I have the 16-35 on a crop sensor and use it as a wide to standard and I have fallen in love with it. I dont really shoot architecture mainly weddings and concerts. A great lens and I have had little to no flare even when shooting toward the sun.


----------



## akiskev (Mar 9, 2012)

Some people OBVIOUSLY (-7 karma) don't believe me about the flare issue.
See for yourselves newbs.

28mm f/11


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Mar 10, 2012)

My apologies for not having the same issue with the flare. Because it is not a problem for me I must be a "newb". For my work it has not been an issue.


----------



## enice128 (Jan 31, 2013)

LACityPhotoCom said:


> Take it from me. I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2006 and have owned two 16-35 2.8 IIs, and probably half a dozen 17-40Ls over time shot on full frame 5D mark I and Mark II bodies as well as Rebels and a 40D.
> 
> The 17-40L and 16-35LII are optically Canon's best ultra-wide zooms. They both perform equally as far as sharpness goes and both look identical stopped down. (the photo on the front page of my site was shot with the 17-40 and 5D2 and even at 1900 px wide, that image is super sharp corner to corner. Shot at F/22 too!
> 
> ...


I think I'm finally gonna pull the trigger on the 16-35 II tomorrow! I've been contemplating it for some time now. I had a used excellent copy on hold but they accidentally sold it! So now I have to spend for new. I'm trading in my 17-40 for $400 so that should help some. I shoot mostly people, sports, sometimes landscapes so 2.8 is huge for me. Did a party the other nite w my 17-40 & my 50 1.2 @2.8. What a difference w each lens. I do t even wanna use my 17-40 no more....I'm spoiled at 2.8!!! One question though....how's the 16-35 when shooting sports? Is it fast enough because this will be my main event lens for shooting weddings, sweet 16s, etc. as well as getting close up action when shooting sports along w my 70-200 2.8 II???


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 31, 2013)

enice128 said:


> LACityPhotoCom said:
> 
> 
> > Take it from me. I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2006 and have owned two 16-35 2.8 IIs, and probably half a dozen 17-40Ls over time shot on full frame 5D mark I and Mark II bodies as well as Rebels and a 40D.
> ...



AF is very fast and amazingly fast to lock on in very low light, I love my 16-35


----------



## enice128 (Jan 31, 2013)

Thats what i thought! I'm especially gonna grab it since i believe the canon rebates r gonna expire on feb 2 so itll be $200 more after that. I luv my 17-40 but i think i will luv the 16-35 even more so!


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 31, 2013)

enice128 said:


> Thats what i thought! I'm especially gonna grab it since i believe the canon rebates r gonna expire on feb 2 so itll be $200 more after that. I luv my 17-40 but i think i will luv the 16-35 even more so!


yeah I see you have the 1Dmk4, that body and this lens are a seriously awesome combo basically 21mm to 48mm FF equivalent and the slight crop makes it corner to corner sharp even wide open, Its overall a superb walk around general purpose combo


----------



## enice128 (Feb 1, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> enice128 said:
> 
> 
> > Thats what i thought! I'm especially gonna grab it since i believe the canon rebates r gonna expire on feb 2 so itll be $200 more after that. I luv my 17-40 but i think i will luv the 16-35 even more so!
> ...


Thanks for making my mind up for me....im picking it up tomorrow! I just have this thing with 2.8 being the narrowest i like to shoot (unless with groups of people of course). Its a bit heavier but then again im used to my 70-200! The rebates r ending on the 2nd so i believe this will be the cheapest for some time. Im really would like to wait to see how the 14-24 plays but whos knows if & when its coming along with the price! And i believe it'll be too wide to shoot people even on my 1.3 crop with facial distortion! What do u think???


----------



## crasher8 (Feb 1, 2013)

After owning 2 17-40's and having the 16-35 for the past 2 weeks I can tell you I either have a great copy or these reviews that say these two lens aren't very different stopped down is rubbish. The color rendition, contrast and flare control are far superior in the 16-35. I'm happy.


----------



## enice128 (Feb 1, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> After owning 2 17-40's and having the 16-35 for the past 2 weeks I can tell you I either have a great copy or these reviews that say these two lens aren't very different stopped down is rubbish. The color rendition, contrast and flare control are far superior in the 16-35. I'm happy.


Thats what i like to hear! Not to take anything away from the 17-40 though!


----------



## ddashti (Feb 1, 2013)

As you may have already read previously, the key points to the 16-35 II are the extra stop of light, and the slightly lesser softness towards the edges.
At f/11 and f/13, the 16-35 II performs slightly better (not a big difference) than the 17-40 in most cases.
If you need the extra stop of light and money isn't an issue, the 16-35 II screams "get me." If you're on a budget and the extra stop doesn't matter (if you're primarily shooting in daylight), then the 17-40 would be the suitable choice.


----------



## enice128 (Feb 1, 2013)

I rarely ever shoot that narrow. I usually like to utilize a lens for what its meant to be used for. For example, my 50 1.2 I mostly use at 1.2 but ill close down to 2.8, f4 or 5.6 for groups of people. Maybe slightly higher for larger groups but that's it. Unless all people in shot r of same importance I love that shallow DOF! I also love shooting in low light with or without my 580exII so this one xtra stop of light is huge for me. Even with my speed light Ill prob be able to lower my ISO. I dont feel like waiting for the 14-24, IF it even comes out along w it's high price point & probably gonna be too wide to shoot people. And w rebates ending tomorrow I might as well pull the trigger!


----------



## Cinto (Feb 1, 2013)

I do a lot of city shots at night, I can tell you that the 17-40 has the best flare control of any lens I've ever used. Both for controlling artifacts and veiling flare. If your looking for resolution mostly, I'd look at the Tokina 16-28. I tried the 16-35 II and found it wasn't as good in contra light as the 17-40 and not as sharp as the Tokina, but it was second best at both.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 1, 2013)

Cinto, that is a great picture!


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The downside to the 16-35 II is the 82mm filter thread, but hey, at least it matches the new 24-70!



The good news is that the lens cap (either the aps-c compatible ew-83j or the ff ew-83e) are large enough to take 82mm filters with a step-up adapter, so that didn't prevent me from buying the 17-40L even though I'll also buy a 82mm 24-70 lens and thus have the large filters.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Feb 1, 2013)

@ Cinto: love the picture!


----------



## serendipidy (Feb 2, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Cinto, that is a great picture!



+100 8)


----------



## pedro (Feb 2, 2013)

LACityPhotoCom said:


> Take it from me. I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2006 and have owned two 16-35 2.8 IIs, and probably half a dozen 17-40Ls over time shot on full frame 5D mark I and Mark II bodies as well as Rebels and a 40D.
> 
> The 17-40L and 16-35LII are optically Canon's best ultra-wide zooms. They both perform equally as far as sharpness goes and both look identical stopped down. (the photo on the front page of my site was shot with the 17-40 and 5D2 and even at 1900 px wide, that image is super sharp corner to corner. Shot at F/22 too!
> 
> ...


Thanks a lot for this mini field review. Although my signature still says something else, reading these things I can imagine to go for the 16-35 instead of waiting on a phantom. As I do low light photography wide open, your experience is crucial for me. So I better burn an additional US $ 280.00 for a 10 stop ND filter instead of a 1000 more for a highly priced WA-zoom that doesn't even exist 8) Your insightful post is highly appreciated. Cheers, Pedro.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 2, 2013)

If you can afford the few extra $$$, 16-35II is a no brainer. Just get it.

Also dampen your expectations as both are UWA's and expecting ultra "crisp" images from corner to corner is setting yourself up for a disappointment. These are both great lenses and do their job very well. If you are realistic, either of them will make you happy.


----------



## Vivid Color (Apr 18, 2013)

Awesome photo, Cinto. Can you tell us more how you made that shot? What settings you used?


----------



## Aglet (Apr 18, 2013)

birdman said:


> The Tokina 17-35/4.0 i supposed to be really solid with nearly ZERO distortion!! to me, it looks close to both of your mentioned lens.



I never had the 16-35, have a 17-40 that's for sale.
I found it to be pretty usable at the wide end if stopped down to f/8 or smaller, improving considerably as you move to the long end.
If I used it for landscape work and didn't focus at hyperfocal or closer, my lens was always soft in the corners. Worked well for indoor and other close-focus material, slightly disappointing if I wanted crisp-to-the-corners large landscape prints.

I got the Tokina 17-35/4 and it's excellent in many ways from 21-35mm but the corners at the wide end are as bad or worse than the 17-40, depending on how you're using it so not much of an improvement, if any, on Canon, but an option in F-mount.

I'm currently trying to put together a wide-zoom kit for Nikon landscape work, minimizing overlap and maximizing performance. The Tokina 16-35 and 16-28 are both in the running for the mid-range wide-angle zoom with the Nikon 14-24 covering its best from about 14 to 20mm.


----------



## pwp (Apr 18, 2013)

It was me who started this thread 14 months ago. I had been a staunch defender of the 17-40, and most of that hold true if shooting from f/5.6-11. Last year I switched to the 16-35 f/2.8II and while there is a quality/economy role for the 17-40, the 16-35 f/2.8II does push it aside in a number of subtle, almost unexplainable ways. And so it should!

At the subtle level, now my UWA images just _look _better. Regardless of aperture. I'm at a loss to explain why. But I'm reaching for the 16-35 a lot more often than I did the 17-40. At a less subtle level, at least I can expect pretty good centre sharpness wide open. That couldn't be said for my copy of the 17-40.

At the end of the day, they're both lenses that will satisfy most shooters UWA needs, and deliver commercial quality results.

-PW


----------



## AudioGlenn (Apr 19, 2013)

pwp said:


> It was me who started this thread 14 months ago. I had been a staunch defender of the 17-40, and most of that hold true if shooting from f/5.6-11. Last year I switched to the 16-35 f/2.8II and while there is a quality/economy role for the 17-40, the 16-35 f/2.8II does push it aside in a number of subtle, almost unexplainable ways. And so it should!
> 
> At the subtle level, now my UWA images just _look _better. Regardless of aperture. I'm at a loss to explain why. But I'm reaching for the 16-35 a lot more often than I did the 17-40. At a less subtle level, at least I can expect pretty good centre sharpness wide open. That couldn't be said for my copy of the 17-40.
> 
> ...



This is great feedback on both of these lenses. This is why I'm saving up for the 16-35.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 19, 2013)

AudioGlenn said:


> This is great feedback on both of these lenses. This is why I'm saving up for the 16-35.



As usual, "more expensive is better" applies here, though as far as I read it not for f8-f11 landscape shots. If you use uwa a lot, the 16-35 might be the better choice, but often it'll be used in a combo with a 24-70 lens - and then it gets more difficult: 16-35+cheap 24-70 or 17-40+expensive 24-70? That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 19, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> As usual, "more expensive is better" applies here, though as far as I read it not for f8-f11 landscape shots. If you use uwa a lot, the 16-35 might be the better choice, but often it'll be used in a combo with a 24-70 lens - and then it gets more difficult: 16-35+cheap 24-70 or 17-40+expensive 24-70? That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.



I use the 17-40 on crop as well, as my general purpose lens. Well built, sealed and performs well, and used on a crop body it's not suffering the same drop off in resolution or vignetting at the corners as it does on a FF body at the wide end, wide open!


----------



## shutterwideshut (Apr 19, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.



Well said! I'm also happy with the 17-40 lens. At f/8-f/16, it is no lemon.


----------



## killswitch (Apr 19, 2013)

Had a question regarding the 16-35 and vignetting. Anyone tried using the B+W 82mm 3.0 ND MRC filter on this lens. Since this is not the XS-Pro version, I was wondering if vignetting will be an an issue when using this particular filter with the lens stopped down?


----------



## pwp (Apr 20, 2013)

kraats said:


> 16-35 II is by far the best. No spint. It is tag sharp from corner to corner.


Even at f/2.8? If so you must have an awesome copy.

-PW


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 21, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> and used on a crop body it's not suffering the same drop off in resolution or vignetting at the corners as it does on a FF body at the wide end, wide open!



... only that correcting vignetting in post is really easy and with no problems unless the vignette was -3ev, but you cannot raise sharpness in post (yet ). As for the much discussed corner sharpness, well, I haven't got a ff body (again: yet ) but looking at my current shots it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 22, 2013)

Does anyone have any experience with the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 FX on Full Frame that they could share? Looks to be quite capable and fairly on par with the 16-35mm but just not sure. I do a lot of paid, indoor Real Estate photography and previously used a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.i with image stabilization on my 7D with outstanding results but didn't love the fit and finish of the lens compared with my L glass. 

I'm now shooting my interiors with my 5D3 and being FF it's a different beast altogether for UWA lenses. So I'm not sure if I should just fork out the extra $$ for the 16-35mm II or get the Tokina 16-28m, which doesn't accept filters either, if I want to jump to some landscape work with it...

Thanks, I value your opinions and especially any experience you may have with this newer Tokina lens.

All the best!


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 22, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, "more expensive is better" applies here, though as far as I read it not for f8-f11 landscape shots. If you use uwa a lot, the 16-35 might be the better choice, but often it'll be used in a combo with a 24-70 lens - and then it gets more difficult: 16-35+cheap 24-70 or 17-40+expensive 24-70? That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.
> ...


When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 24, 2013)

Kernuak said:


> When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.



This is why when I eventually go full frame I'll also need to get a better wide angle zoom than the 17-40 I already own, otherwise I could just get a 6D and be done with it. I'm not saying you can't get decent ultrawide shots with the 17-40 on full frame, but especially for landscape use, seeing how the corner resolution falls off even using it on a crop body, I can only imagine how it would be on full frame. Interestingly this is more apparent to me for landscape work at infinity focus than it is for closer subjects. For this reason I am interested to see what becomes of the rumour rumor that Canon may have a new ultrawide zoom coming to market sometime in the medium term future.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jun 24, 2013)

@ Krkb78:
tested the 17-40 for a weekend, soft (= unsharp) + horrible CAs.
No.
Had the 16-35/2,8II for more then a year. Never sharp corners. Even at f8.
Didn't like it. Was usable on the 1d4, but FF: sigh....
Bad luck? 

Bought my first non- Canon lens. Tokina 16-28/2,8.
Own it for 2 years.
Now I am happy. I have read a lot about varying quality, so it seems this time I had good luck.
Sharp from 2.8 on, corners good, corners excellent from 5.6 up. 
Never saw this on the 16-35/II....

Be aware of that. It is heavier too. Has only 16-28mm. 
I am also not sharing Neuroanatomists opinion, that a bulb- like front needs more loving care in developing.

I recommend to test a copy before you buy.


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 25, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> @ Krkb78:
> tested the 17-40 for a weekend, soft (= unsharp) + horrible CAs.
> No.
> Had the 16-35/2,8II for more then a year. Never sharp corners. Even at f8.
> ...


Thanks Alex, I checked it out and I like it. Seems like a perfect option for my 5d MkIII. I've ordered one and it's on the way, should have it by Thursday!

The one I tried was just like you said, quite impressive really. I noticed less distortion at 16mm too. As far as the bulbous front lens, I see that there are two filter systems out there that will work with this lens, should I need to use in that manner. 

I don't plan on doing a lot of landscape work with it, although I can see taking it along on some wedding and event work. I'll likely use the 24-70mm f/2.8 for landscape work, I like the 24mm end for that... 

Thank you again!


----------



## Act444 (Jun 26, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.
> ...



YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 26, 2013)

Act444 said:


> YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.



Interestingly, and I admit my knowledge is limited on this, lens resolution/performance can vary with focusing/subject distance, and annoyingly this factor is rarely mentioned or tested by many lens testing sites. My 17-40 and EF-S 10-22 are both similar in this regard on the 7D, at close distances even to the edges of the frame the sharpness is pretty good, but for infinity subjects at the corner of the frame it's a different matter. Obviously, factors such as CA, field curvature and astigmatism have a part to play, and resolving fine detail on small and distant subjects is always going to be a bigger test of a lens than closer subjects.


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 28, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.
> ...


It's always going to be better on an APS-C body like the 7D over a full frame body...


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 28, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, and I admit my knowledge is limited on this, lens resolution/performance can vary with focusing/subject distance, and annoyingly this factor is rarely mentioned or tested by many lens testing sites. My 17-40 and EF-S 10-22 are both similar in this regard on the 7D, at close distances even to the edges of the frame the sharpness is pretty good, but for infinity subjects at the corner of the frame it's a different matter. Obviously, factors such as CA, field curvature and astigmatism have a part to play, and resolving fine detail on small and distant subjects is always going to be a bigger test of a lens than closer subjects.
> ...



Agreed, but the point about some lenses performing better at closer focus distances than infinity should apply equally to crop or full frame.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 28, 2013)

Act444 said:


> I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.



This doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive to me - while it's true lenses show different sharpness depending on focus distance, the effect on your particular copy of the lens could very well be stronger than the average "standard" due to a defect or simply bad luck with a "bad copy".


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 28, 2013)

Cinto said:


> I do a lot of city shots at night, I can tell you that the 17-40 has the best flare control of any lens I've ever used. Both for controlling artifacts and veiling flare. If your looking for resolution mostly, I'd look at the Tokina 16-28. I tried the 16-35 II and found it wasn't as good in contra light as the 17-40 and not as sharp as the Tokina, but it was second best at both.





> I'd look at the Tokina 16-28.


Mine just came in yesterday, virtually worthless at f/2.8 for anything sharp. Also, focus motor is quite loud. I can live with that but when focussing from wide to narrow or visa versa, there is almost a grinding sound! Doesn't sound good at all, I can only picture little pieces of plastic or metal being ground down inside the lens body! The terrible sharpness at f/2.8 and the grinding noise will win this Tokina a place in the return mail! I will let them send me a new copy as I noticed the barrel distortion was really slight, even wide open at 16mm. That part was pretty impressive. 

If the new copy fixes the sharpness issue at f/2.8 and the grinding sound coming from the AF, I'll keep it. If not, I'll be sending it back and moving toward the Canon ef 16-35 f/2.8 II. 

Also, the Tokina lens is very heavy. I have a lot of heavy lenses but this one seems very heavy for it's relatively small size... I'll have it mostly on a tripod so that won't matter to much to me...

The vignetting was fairly normal to heavy at f/2.8 but it was extremely minimal at f/4.0 and above. Very pleased with that. CA was the same, very well under control... Hopefully, given the sharpness issue and the grinding, I just got an ill copy... 

I can add the filter system to it and still be well under the cost of the EF 16-35mm II


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jun 30, 2013)

@ Krob78: bad luck, you have got a bad copy.
I had a hard time even thinking about buying a third party lens, after using almost 30 years only Canon.
The drive is louder, but extra sound like you described seems to be a serious damage.
I have read many reviews on the net before buying, Tokina seems to have issues with quality control.
So I choosed to order it from a place, where I can send it back with no problems.
I wish you good luck with the replacement.


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 20, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> @ Krob78: bad luck, you have got a bad copy.
> I had a hard time even thinking about buying a third party lens, after using almost 30 years only Canon.
> The drive is louder, but extra sound like you described seems to be a serious damage.
> I have read many reviews on the net before buying, Tokina seems to have issues with quality control.
> ...


Thanks Alex, I did send it back however I decided not to opt for a replacement. Although it was mostly good, the weight was really absurd and I decided I didn't want to "try" another one, so I ended up with another Canon L lens... I picked up a 17-40mm L and it works great, just like I knew it would. Surprisingly and conversely, the 17-40mm L is amazingly light!! Almost too light for my liking!! 

But no flare issues, nice color rendering, sharp. Price was excellent at only $625 for brand new in box. I use it mostly for interior Real Estate work, so f/4 isn't an issue as I'm shooting it primarily indoors at f/5.6 and f/8. A little wider would have been nice but the lens will pay for itself very quickly with a couple of shoots. 

I wanted the 16-35mm f/2.8 but decided with rumors of a new wide angle being announced later this year (hopefully with IS), I decided to pocket the almost $800 difference and I'll take a look at the new offering when it comes out... If it doesn't surface, I'll think about upgrading at that time. For now, other than the amazing lightness (feels cheap), of the 17-40mm, I'm set...


----------

