- This topic is empty.
Canon 16-35 or 17-40
-
Hey guys
I want to purchase a wide angle lens
I have been looking at the 16-35 L and the 17-40L, and I have heard reports that the 16-35 is a better lens
but in terms of price the 16-35 is almost twice as much and the new version three times as much of that of the 17-40
so my question is, is there that much difference between these to justify the large jump in price, not sure i could afford the new version of the 16-35 (warehouse express have it priced at 1200 STG!!!!!) but is it worth me spending twice as much money for the 16-35 against the 17-40
Anyone with experience of these lens would be a great help
thank in advance
steve
Hi Steve,
I have the 17-40 and think it is a great lens.
I read a review once that stated that the 17-40 was optically slightly better than the older 16-35. I think we can assume that the new 16-35 will be better than both in the optics department. Canon have stated that they have improved edge sharpness which is where both of the older lenses have lacked but this really only becomes an issue if you are shooting FF. You have to ask yourself is the extra 1mm at the wide end and the extra stop from f4-f2.8 worth the extra money for you. If so go for the 16, if not the 17 is great value for money. Another point to remember is that the 17 is also lighter than the 16 and build quality is almost identical for both.Thanks carl
thats the sort of info i was looking for
I wouldnt be shooting FF, but plan to use it for doing 360 degree panoramic stuff mainly and some landscape stuff
the new 16-35 seems to be mad money, 1200 stg!! i really trying to figure out is there is actually that much money worth of difference
Steve,
Here is a shot I took with the 17-40 at f8 and 26mm 1/100 on a 350D.
I have an A2 print of this and it is crazy sharp all over the frame!
Sorry for butting in..but just wanted to say that that is a fabulous shot Carl :D Where was it taken?
thanks Carl
i was keen to see if it was worth the extra money for the 16-35, but i think you have me convinced.
by the way I like the image too
Expresbro wrote:
Sorry for butting in..but just wanted to say that that is a fabulous shot Carl :D Where was it taken?
Thanks!
Pic was taken in Venice (a photographers paradise), between the water bus-stop and St Mark’s square.
I had a similar dilemma and ended up going for the 17-40.
The 16mm vs 17mm doesn’t bother me, but the 2.8 would be great to have. Still considering selling my 17-40 and going for the 16-35, but I have better things to spend money on, in all honesty (like a 1D mk III). The 17-40 is a cracking lens for the price.
If you want to have a go with it, gimmie a shout – always up for photography outings!
Tim
There’s a cheaper alternative which you may want to consider if you’re not using a full frame camera.
Sigma 10-20 – Approx ?500 in Irish shops
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3301&navigator=6
http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/pool/Steve, if it is for landscape why would you want 2.8? The 17-40 f4 (which I have) is a very sharp lens and I use it mostly at f11/f16. You would only need the 2.8 if you were using it for low light or indoors work, so I would definitely recommend the 17-40 f4.
Have a look at this gallery, all taken with the Canon 20D and 17-40 f4L :http://www.pbase.com/sheila/canon_1740_f4_l
Ross
ross
there are some stunning images in there
I think the 17-40 is what i want, but i was just making sure that the 16-35 wasnt worth the extra cash
Just noticed that on that gallery, Sheila Smart also recommends shooting at f11/f16 for landscapes. There is another gallery of hers showing the full frame 5D with the 17-40 as well.
Not wanting to thread hijack, but….
Interesting point on f11/f16 – I always shoot at around f8 – f/11 as I thought this was around the sweet spot for sharpness…
Note to self: test a range of apertures next time I’m out…
Tim
I use the 10-20mm Sigma, and also F11-F16 also, find it the sharpest points on the lens, esp for landscapes.
As for the lens, if your using landscapes then your going to be using F8 higher mainly, seen some great photos taken with the 17-40mm L but also with the 16-35mm L. I agree with earthairfire said also. All comes down to how much you wanna spend!
Matt.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
