Options

17-40mm f.4L or 16-35mm f.2.8L?

DNagataDNagata Registered Users Posts: 15 Big grins
edited January 31, 2009 in Cameras
Hi everyone,

A few days ago, my house was robbed, and among other things, the robbers took my Canon EF 17-40mm f.4L lens. (Luckily, they didn't get my 5D or 5DMKII, or my top three "L" lenses) Insurance should cover everything, but now I have a choice of either getting another 17-40mm or getting the 16-35mm f.2.8L, as the value of my lesser equipment lost that I don't care to replace could cover the price difference between the two lenses.

I loved the 17-40mm lens, but the 2.8 aperture on the other one is very appealing. However, I've read reviews that say the 16-35mm is soft in the 25-35mm range. I'd love to hear from people who have used both lenses on if the 16-35mm is worth the extra $$.

Thanks!

- Dallas
http://www.dallasnagata.com
http://dallasnagata.smugmug.com

Comments

  • Options
    ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 23,901 moderator
    edited January 19, 2009
    Dallas,

    I don't have both of the lenses but I did decide that for what I shoot and the way I shoot that the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM was the more appropriate for my needs.

    I use the lens on a 1D MKII to shoot fairly wide for "establish" shots of a venue or to cover a large group portrait in a smaller room. For those purposes the larger aperture would not be needed and f4 is similar on both lenses. On the 1D body the focus speed is very quick and sure.

    If I were doing landscapes on a full frame camera it might be a different story but I would go for the MKII version of the 16-35mm because it does hold corner sharpness better.

    The Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm, f/2.8 G ED N on an adapter might be the best quality overall, but it is more awkward on a Canon body, of course.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Options
    Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited January 19, 2009
    The 17-40 is a sweet lens if you don't need f2.8. Otherwise the 16-35mm/2.8 L II (not I) seems the way to go. The 16-35 II is better at larger aperatures than the 17-40. While the 17-40 is more resistant to flare.

    Personaly I would go for the 16-35mm/2.8 L II because I run into low light situations quite often.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • Options
    PhotoskipperPhotoskipper Registered Users Posts: 453 Major grins
    edited January 20, 2009
    I got 17-40 F4 to extend the L line of 24-105 and 70-200.
    I love the 16-35 F2.8 but found it a bit too heavy.
    The reason for getting the 17-40 instead of 16-35 F2.8 was not only the price difference, but the filter size. As I like to travel and have the 3 Ls in my backpack most of the time, I don't want to carry another set of 82 mm filters. All my 3 Ls are using 77 mm filter so I just to get one size for all.

    Althought the DSLR does not need so many filters as those film days, it still need the UV, PL, NDs as the basic. Special effects filters is extra for digital, but good to have couple of it in the bag.

    Don't forget the 82 mm filters are more expensive.
    Photoskipper
    flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
  • Options
    BillyJoBobBillyJoBob Registered Users Posts: 2 Beginner grinner
    edited January 31, 2009
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

    Been a while since I read that review but you may find it helpful.

    LL is a terrific site and very helpful, he has a ton of articles, reviews and tutorials on there. Some of the articles are older and my only caution is to check the date for relevance to today's technology.

    Sorry to hear you wuz robbed!

    BJB
Sign In or Register to comment.