Canon EF 16-35 f2.8 vs. 17-40 f4.0: Quick question. Given the one stop difference in aperture between the above two and the price doubling in the process for the 2.8, for those who...

danielb59 Loc: The South

Quick question. Given the one stop difference in aperture between the above two and the price doubling in the process for the 2.8, for those who have used both lenses, please provide me with some insight. I am retired and a hobbyist on a budget, but I enjoy good glass. Both of these lenses are Canon L's, so that is taken out of the equation. Should the 16-35 be head and shoulders above the 17-40 in performance, it may induce me to save the extra time required in order to purchase. However, comparable performance and feedback would indicate that the F4.0 lens is the way to go, particularly since it would only require about half as much time to acquire the necessary funds.

Thanks in advance for any responses.
Dan

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

danielb59 wrote:

Quick question. Given the one stop difference in ... (show quote)

I've only owned the 16-35 but here is a good site that I use for comparisons:

the 17-40
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3

The 16-35
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=313&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

They seem pretty evenly matched to me, both got a rating of 9 and 9.1.

I wasn't that impressed with the 16-35; I actually ended up buying a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.

Others can chime in but my thought is that it's not worth doubling the price.

One thing to think about is the width....16 may not SEEM like it's very far from 17 but it is.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Ken Rockwell gives a good comparison of these two on his site. It is mostly a case of do you NEED f2.8 ??? - or the money difference ??

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

danielb59 wrote:

Quick question. Given the one stop difference in ... (show quote)

I agree with rpavich. I have owned both lenses. I now only own the 17-40L. Sold the 16-35L. The question really is: do you need f/2.8? For my purposes, NO. However, I have a friend who swears by the 16-35 lens. Of course, he shoots a lot of indoor and low light. I guess it really depends on what you intend to shoot. Between the two I had, the 17-40 seemed a bit sharper to me, but it may be that I expected too much from the price of the 16-35.

anotherview Loc: California

Two reviews that may help you to decide:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d

I own and use the 16-35L II, mainly for events like parties, because it can capture a group without my having to stand a big distance from the group while taking its picture.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I use the 16-35/2.8II quite a lot and I really like it. There is a good comparison between it and the 17-40 on "thedigitalpicture.com. Worth reading!!

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

danielb59 wrote:

Quick question. Given the one stop difference in ... (show quote)

Great question and very informative answers from UHH members, as I was thinking of upgrading to the 16-35 from my 17-40. However, now I'm thinking I'll keep my 17-40.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

danielb59 wrote:

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Dan - it took me a moment to find it via search, but I was sure there was a discusison about the 16-35 somewhat recently. And, some excellent examples of the possibilities ... See here http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-113802-1.html

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Jakebrake wrote:

Great question and very informative answers from UHH members, as I was thinking of upgrading to the 16-35 from my 17-40. However, now I'm thinking I'll keep my 17-40.

The lens that has not come up in this discussion yet is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Although not an L series, it performs optically better than either of the others. If you have a crop camera and don't plan on going FF, then it should be seriously considered.

Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now

imagemeister wrote:

Ken Rockwell gives a good comparison of these two on his site. It is mostly a case of do you NEED f2.8 ??? - or the money difference ??

BINGO !

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

mdorn wrote:

The lens that has not come up in this discussion yet is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Although not an L series, it performs optically better than either of the others. If you have a crop camera and don't plan on going FF, then it should be seriously considered.

I use my 17-40 on both my 7D & 5D Mk II as well. Thanks.

anotherview Loc: California

ditto:

mdorn wrote:

The lens that has not come up in this discussion yet is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Although not an L series, it performs optically better than either of the others. If you have a crop camera and don't plan on going FF, then it should be seriously considered.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you can live with 20mm at the short end, the Tamron SP 20-40 F2.7-3.5 is a great full frame lens for about $220 on ebay !