# f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL



## ssteele06 (Feb 19, 2014)

Hey all,

Was looking for some insight on the aforementioned (in the subject) wide angle lenses. I shoot on a 5D Mark III, and am wondering if the f2.8 16-35mm is considerably sharper on the edges compared to the f4 17-40mm. I would be using the lens for primarily outdoor landscape use, but definitely would be used diversely. Any comparison of the two is appreciated.

Cheers!


----------



## knoxtown (Feb 20, 2014)

Both lenses are fantastic stopped down, which I'm assuming you do since you shoot landscape. Get the 17-40 and save some money.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 20, 2014)

The 16-35 does a little bit better in the midframe and the edges at larger apertures, but the differences are minimized at f/8 or smaller. The 16-35 will also vignette less at larger apertures. However, neither lens will approach the sharpness of primes (i.e. TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 24L II), especially at larger apertures, and the IQ gap between the 16-35 and primes is bigger than the gap between the 16-35/17-40.

If you have a higher price sensitivity, then the 17-40 makes sense because it will get you most of the 16-35 performance for much lower cost for landscapes. If you like to take photojournalist style pictures, then the additional stop and midframe sharpness might be worth it.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 20, 2014)

I use my 17-40 mostly on holidays; its portability is excellent and it's great on full frame. When a wide aperture is needed I prefer primes over 2.8 zooms, save the 70-200 of course.


----------



## Lightmaster (Feb 20, 2014)

i had both.
sold the 16-35mm.

it´s was simply 600 euro more for something i don´t need.
i was not impressed by the quality at f2.8 and i did not use the lense at wider apertures then f4 anyway.

it´s said the extrem corner resolution of the 17-40mm is bad below f8 at 17mm but to be honest mine looks as good as the 16-35mm (on FF).
i think most repeat what they read at photozone and they should redo the test.
anyway for the money im very happy with my 17-40mm.
i guess i got a very good copy.


----------



## RomainF (Feb 20, 2014)

I bought my 2.8 this monday. I use the 35 1.4 and needed a wider lens. I'm disappointed with its overall performances. It's a wide lens i'll use when i really need it. If a can step backward, i'll ever prefer moving a bit than changing the 35L for this 16-35.
It's wide but ain't sharp. I often need to crank up the iso so I need the one more stop the 16-35 offers but that's the only reason to choose it.


----------



## mr_hyde (Feb 20, 2014)

I have to admit that I have no experience with the 16-35 but I bought recently the 17-40 for the 5d MKIII and after a couple of weeks of "testing" I am really happy with the lens. 

As I use this only for private purpose and do not make any money with Photography, I could not justify the price of the 16-35. 

I bought the 17-40 through the Canon refurbished store when they had additional discounts where the price for the 17-40 was basically a no-brainer. The lens arrived in a condition like it was new. I definitely do recommend the Canon US refurbished store. Not sure if there is something like that available in Europe or other countries.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 20, 2014)

ssteele06 said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Was looking for some insight on the aforementioned (in the subject) wide angle lenses. I shoot on a 5D Mark III, and am wondering if the f2.8 16-35mm is considerably sharper on the edges compared to the f4 17-40mm. I would be using the lens for primarily outdoor landscape use, but definitely would be used diversely. Any comparison of the two is appreciated.
> 
> Cheers!


Welcome to CR.
At one point, I owned both lenses at the same time and sold the 17-40 f/4 in favor of 16-35 f/2.8 L II ... both are very capable lenses, but if money is not an issue, then get the 16-35 f/2.8 L II ... 1mm difference between 16mm and 17mm may not seem like a lot but there is a noticeble difference. I am sucker for "Sun star" effect and the 16-35 f/2.8 L II produces far superior "sun star" effect then the 17-40.
If you can try renting both the lenses and try this:
Point your camera at the sun and shoot with a small aperture, (e.g. f/16 or f/22). The diaphragm blades in the lens will create a star effect ... and you will see how pleasingly the 16-35 f/2.8 L II can create a sun start as opposed to the 17-40 f/4 (which to me looks lame in comparison) ... the same thing applies to street lights as well. Also note that at f/4 the 16-35 f/2.8 L II is sharper in the edges then the 17-40 f/4
Here is an image showing the "sun star" effect with the 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens.

*EDIT:* Image removed due to my error ... I had uploaded the wrong the image (thanks to mrsfotografie for pointing it out) ... refer to my below post for the correct image.


----------



## Lightmaster (Feb 20, 2014)

best sunstars you get with photoshop. 

no honest you better think hard if that´s worth a 600 euro difference.

for the performance both lenses offer i can justify the 17-40mm.
but the 16-35mm is kind of a let down for the price... iyam.

so when will canon produce a great 12-24mm? ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ssteele06 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey all,
> ...



Interesting, but that image you show canot possibly be shot with either of these lenses because they both do have seven blade apertures that produce 14 point starbursts. Your image shows 18 points, pointing to a nine blade aperture. Nine blade apertures don't exist in wide angle Canon EF zoom lenses so the lens used in this image is third party as well, or it was the new 24-70.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > ssteele06 said:
> ...


Oops ... my apologies... looks like I messed up while uploading the image, thanks for pointing it out ... I meant to load this one, made with the 16-35 f/2.8 L II, in December 2013
Image made with Canon 5D MK III + 16-35 f/2.8 L II, f/16, ISO 100, 1/800s


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

Here are a couple of images made with the 16-35 f/2.8 L II at f/16 showing star burst effect with street lights at/near my office building.
Images made with Canon 5D MK III + 16-35 f/2.8 L II, f/16, ISO 100, 30sec exposure


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



No problem there  I bet you used your 24-70 Tamron for that image, am I correct?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...


Actually, that image is not even mine, so I have no idea which lens was used.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> best sunstars you get with photoshop.
> 
> no honest you better think hard if that´s worth a 600 euro difference.
> 
> ...


Yes you can do quite a lot things in photoshop, including sunstars, in which case you don't even need the EF 17-40 f/4 or a full frame camera, you can get any entry level DSLR and cheap third party lens, take the shot and do everything in photoshop ... that way one will save a lot more money then just 600 euro, but to achieve the same results in PP, will waste a lot of time behind a computer, instead of being out there on the field and enjoy doing what we really like i.e. photography.
Take for example this below image, there are about a dozen sunstar effects from the street lights straight out of the camera ... now try achieving the same results in PP and see how long it takes for you to remove the effects of bright/blotchy halos around the street lights and replacing them with sunstar effect ... now imagine having to do this for a couple of dozen of those images from just single night's street photography. 
There is a reason why the 16-35 costs more ... the EF 17-40 f/4 produces soft images at f/4, whereas the 16-35 f/2.8 L II at f/4 produces far more sharper images ... also the 16-35 f/2.8 L II lets in twice as much light. But if one is only shooting at narrow apertures and does not care about 16mm or the pleasing sunstar effects, then the 17-40 f/4 is very good value for money. But the 16-35 f/2.8 L II is definitely worth its price.

BTW, the below image is made with 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens at 70mm, f/16, ISO 100, 30sec exposure on 5D MK III (it is used as an example to show what a good lens can do for "sunstar" effect, straight out of the camera, as opposed wasting a lot of time on PP)


----------



## Radiating (Feb 21, 2014)

My advice is to skip both lenses and adapt a Nikon 14-24mm. Both Canon offerings are incredibly horrible.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

Radiating said:


> My advice is to skip both lenses and adapt a Nikon 14-24mm. Both Canon offerings are incredibly horrible.


 : ... there we go ... OP is *specifically* asking for advice on 16-35 f/2.8 L II vs 17-4 f/4 L, and your advice is to jump ship to another camera manufacturer ... how intelligent :


----------



## romanr74 (Feb 21, 2014)

I love the 16-35 mm for its versatility and it allows for great creativity if corner-to-corner sharpness is not a primary concern. the sun-stars are awesome - i prefer these over photoshop sun-stars. 

I am not impressed with the corner image quality of the 16-35 mm though. I would not recommend it for landscape photography, I'd rather recommend either the 24 of 17 mm TS-E lenses for landscape.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > My advice is to skip both lenses and adapt a Nikon 14-24mm. Both Canon offerings are incredibly horrible.
> ...



And to say these Canon lenses are 'horrible' is a gross overstatement of any optical shortcomings they may have. :


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 21, 2014)

Radiating said:


> My advice is to skip both lenses and adapt a Nikon 14-24mm. Both Canon offerings are incredibly horrible.



Sensible if you want a Nikon body too. You do realize the OP doesn't want to change bodies, right?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2014)

Radiating said:


> My advice is to skip both lenses and adapt a Nikon 14-24mm. Both Canon offerings are incredibly horrible.



By directly comparing a $800 17-40L landscape lens with rather flexible focal length with a dedicated uwa zoom *2.5x the price* you can only end up with a trollish conclusion.

To the op: Try using the search field and feel free to browse through some the other 100 dedicated 17-40L vs 16-35L threads


----------



## dppaskewitz (Feb 21, 2014)

To the op: Try using the search field and feel free to browse through some the other 100 dedicated 17-40L vs 16-35L threads 

+1 (Actually, there are only 81, but who is counting?)


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 21, 2014)

I upgraded from the 17-40L to the 16-35L II and the extra stop comes in handy not to mention the more expensive lens has better IQ in my opinion. I went with 17-40L initially until I could get the funds for 16-35L. With my CPS membership, I was able to get loaners of both. The 17-40L did an acceptable job of shooting landscapes and cityscapes and you may be perfectly happy with it but I needed the extra capabilty of the 16-35L for "light" reasons.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 21, 2014)

dppaskewitz said:


> To the op: Try using the search field and feel free to browse through some the other 100 dedicated 17-40L vs 16-35L threads
> 
> +1 (Actually, there are only 81, but who is counting?)



Who really cares about that, it's too much fun just to discuss and get the newest insights


----------



## Jemlnlx (Feb 21, 2014)

Have had both. First the 17-40 a few years back and then I switched to the 16-35mm II which is a great lens. Hefty lens that feels like a true L lens. I got a really great deal on it ($800 - UZ Date Code) from a local person that really needed to get rid of it asap. I couldn't justify the extra stop of light, 1mm wider view plus a slightly better corner sharpness for the price difference, so I sold it for $1200 and got a great deal on a 17-40mm for $525. Having $675 in my pocket was worth more than the pros, at least for me.

Also you'll be spending about 25% more on filters with the 16-35mm. 82mm v. 77mm.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Feb 21, 2014)

I haven't tried the 16-35 but I will say the corners on my 17-40 are terrible. When your at the wider side of the lens, the corners are filled with chromatic aberration. When I was shooting on crop, it was a great lens but now it definitely falls short of expectations. I've had to crop some of my photos taken at 17 (even stopped down to f/11 or greater) because the corners were unusable. This maybe just my battle torn lens needing some realignment sense the bottom left corner is the biggest problem.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2014)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> This maybe just my battle torn lens needing some realignment sense the bottom left corner is the biggest problem.



That would be it, get it repaired - I got even my new lens unaligned and had it replaced. Most CA is easily corrected nowadays, and the corner problem (if you take shots that need this) of the 17-40L diminishes a lot if stopped down - be sure to check with existing sample shots on the net after repair to see if it works properly by then.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Feb 21, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Andy_Hodapp said:
> 
> 
> > This maybe just my battle torn lens needing some realignment sense the bottom left corner is the biggest problem.
> ...



So send it to Canon? How long and how much would you guess?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2014)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> So send it to Canon? How long and how much would you guess?



If you've got cps there are max. times depending on cps level ... but since you ask you're probably just a plain ol' Canon customer, so call them, usually they have a very good idea how long a non-cps repair takes. 

And ask for the price estimate, it saves you a heart attack later on if you're warned :-o but a decentered lens that shows iq degradation even stopped down doesn't leave you much of a choice.


----------

