For tBragg Guy Loc: Fort Bragg Ca

Hi Group
I am looking into switching from the Cannon 17-40 to the new 16-35 and am wondering if any of you have done the switch and if you are happy for it. Also considering the 2.8 over the 4.0 but have read where the 4.0 is sharper. Any comments with real world experience would be appreciated. I live several hours away from a real camera store to go play with them.
Thanks

renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada

I have the 16-35 F2.8 lens and I love it. It's my main carry around lens for my Canon 7D. I have never used the 17-40, but the 16-35 should be a lot better in low light situations over the 17-40 F4.0. Is there a reason why you want to change? The 16-35 F2.8 is not a cheap lens to buy. I'm super happy with mine though.

Mike

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I sold my 17-40 and bought the 16-35 f/4 just a couple of months ago. It's the lens that is most always on my 6D. I'm quite pleased with it. Here are 2 indoor shots that I took with it while on vacation last month. The 1st one is at 35mm and looking at the beam work I can detect no distortion. The 2nd one is at 16mm and some distortion is noticable but I don't consider it excessive, especially when you remember that Canon has not released any correction profiles yet for the lens. Both photos are un-edited.

35mm

(Download)

16mm

(Download)

Grammieb1 Loc: New Orleans

I purchased the Canon 16-35 is and it is an excellent lens. I prefer fast glass & I have the Canon 24-70 2.8 ll & the Canon 70-200 2.8 is ll. the selling points for the 16-35 4 over the 2.8 version are better optics and image stabilization. Optically, the improvement over the 2.8 for less money makes it appealing & the image stabilization makes up for the speed in a lot of circumstances. Bab

For tBragg Guy Loc: Fort Bragg Ca

Hi Thanks for the reply. I am looking for a bit more image quality is the reason for looking at changing. That's another reason for trying to get info on the 2.8 s the F4.

renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada

This is a photo I took about 3 weeks ago with the 16-35mm F2.8.

Topaz Lake, Nevada

(Download)

Grammieb1 Loc: New Orleans

Beautiful image. Bab

For tBragg Guy Loc: Fort Bragg Ca

Great Shot!! I fished at Topaz lake as a young 13 yrs old to start when living in the Reno area. Nevada has a lot of hidden gems that most people will never see from the usual routes.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Guy, welcome to the Hog. Go to The Digital Picture, and read the reviews on all three lenses. Also you can compare them directly using the image quality charts. These are real world reviews. They should parallel what is said here. ;-)
SS

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

Have both, the 16-35 2.8 gives better image quality mostly because it is a faster lens. Unfortunately mine quite auto focusing a couple of months back. I can still use as a manual lens. I will have to see what it would take to get it fixed. I didn't use it much though as I went to a 24 mm prime, which is mid range, and a 1.4. For indoor shots it is great. I can simply move in or out a bit to get the image size right or crop later. The 24mm takes great shots. And the speed of the lens is by far better for indoor shots. I rarely use ISO above 800 even in darker rooms at home. I also don't use a flash very often with this lens.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Look up the MTF charts for the two different 16-35s and the 17-40. I agree, too, that The Digital Picture comparisons can be helpful. I think you'll find the f2.8 lens excellent, but slightly less sharp at the edges and in the corners, especially when used wide open. That's fairly typical of faster lenses.

Also, the f2.8 lens requires larger 82mm filters, which are often considerably more expensive than 77mm used by the 16-35/4 and 17-40/4. Overall, the f2.8 lens is larger and heavier.

And, the 16-35/4 has IS, while the other two lenses don't.

Finally, look to your own images. How often do you actually feel the need for f2.8 on an ultrawide? How slow a shutter speed can you handhold these lenses? Speaking for myself, I regularly handhold ultrawides at 1/30 and sometimes even slower, without IS. Combining 1/30 with f4 with cameras that are capable of high quality images at ISO 1600 and 3200, all adds up to make possible shooting in really low light situations, even without IS. I'm also more likely to use this type lens on a tripod, for a carefully planned scenic shot. And I'm most likely to stop them down in search of greater depth of field.

Now, I'm sure some folks do need f2.8. For example, if you are shooting weddings where flash isn't allowed and need low light capabilities, then by all means an f2.8 (or faster) lens might be necessary. But I bet a lot of other people spend extra to get f2.8 and rarely, if ever, really need it, such as for scenic shots or tripod work. Ultrawides are not like normal to telephoto, where large apertures are needed to render shallow depth of field effects.

renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada

Thanks.... I agree the Reno area does have many hidden gems, something my wife and I have been exploring....;0) Always looking for more.

Mike

renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada

Thanks Bab.... I appreciate it.

Mike