For those of you who has had tried both lenses,what are the advantages of the Canon 16-35 F2.8L over the Canon 17-40 F4L and vice-versa?Also,which do you like more between these 2 lenses?
THANKS.

Michael Y.

PS.Is it true that the Canon 17-40 F4L is sharper than the Canon 16-35 F2.8L len?
THANKS.

The 16-35 f/2.8L is a stop faster and is also a tad wider than its little brother 17-40 f/4L.

17-40 is way cheaper.... :)

Michael,
You can find the review below very useful...

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Michael,

Try these links, it may help. I'm using a 17-40, very satisfied with it. :)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Buti na lang me nagtanong na, i'm planning to make a big switch so i'm considering the 17-40L. Thanks guys!!!

Go with the 17-40 f4 L. It's much lighter, cheaper and better than the 16-35. The only advantages of the 16-35 it's 1-stop faster and a 1mm wider.

For the longest time I was after this lens to complete my holy trinity of fast zooms. It's just that it just doesn't offer much value over the 17-40 used on Canon DSLRs with cropped sensors.

On the grand scheme of things, I'd get a 5D first before acquiring a 16-35. But if you have the moolah, nobody here's gonna say the 16-35 is inferior.

Weight becomes a real consideration when you're shooting the whole day outdoors. If you're going to lug it around for long periods of time, you'd appreciate the 17-40.

The extra stop wouldn't matter a whole lot if you're a landscape guy because the tripod will take care of all that.

Having said that, there's that sweet spot during the day when the sun is setting and you're walking around without a tripod when an F4 just wouldn't cut it.

If you have the money and don't mind the weight, get the 16-35. If it's a negative on either/both areas, the 17-40.

Quality-wise, I don't think there's a significant difference in both lenses. The AF on the 17-40 and the 70-200 f4L are amazingly fast and the photos tack sharp.

I'm happy with the f4Ls as I use them mostly for daytime. I switch to my faster lenses for lowlight which I usually use for street photography/pj stuff anyway.

One thing about "L" lenses, you can always sell it with minimal loss : )

I have the 16-35. I like it a lot.... I don't mind the weight too..It's always mounted in my 1dmk2...if you have the budget buy it..if not then buy the 17-40. It really depends on your "wants and needs" :)

imho..

ruel

have the same problem.. i know if i get the 17-40 i'd eventually be looking for the 16-35. but i agree, it depends on your needs. if you're going to be using it for outdoor/street/photojournalism i think that the 17-40 is ok enough, considering the big price difference as well.

hirap mag decide ano? sakit sa ulo! hehe :D

have the same problem.. i know if i get the 17-40 i'd eventually be looking for the 16-35. but i agree, it depends on your needs. if you're going to be using it for outdoor/street/photojournalism i think that the 17-40 is ok enough, considering the big price difference as well.

hirap mag decide ano? sakit sa ulo! hehe :D

Well,I intend to use this lens for landscape shots.
THANKS.

Michael Y.

1635L costs almost more than half of 1740L....

it all boils down to the budget, imho.

i dont think you can go wrong with either lens.

btw, are you using FF?

[quote=Glenn Francisco]1635L costs almost more than half of 1740L....

it all boils down to the budget, imho.

i dont think you can go wrong with either lens.

btw, are you using FF?[/quote

No.I am using a camera(Canon 30D)which I believe has 1.6 crop factor.
Thanks.

From what I read I think the 17-40 is a whole lot better. Though I'd recommend the EF-S 10-22 over the 17-40L if you're gonna use it on your 30d.

Hmm, if you're using it for landscapes shots, get the 17-40. You're going to have to increase the aperture anyway to get sufficient DOF.

If you have the budget to buy the 16-35 then go for it. If weight is an issue and you'll be using it mainly for landscapes the the 17-40 will be enough for your needs.

quick question...

how much does the 17-40 F4L costs now adays...

I was speaking to a french photographer the other day. He mentioned that he tested the 16-35 and 17-40 side by side and decided to keep the 17-40. The sharpness and contrast were much better and since he does primarily studio work the 1 stop difference was not a factor. He was using it with a Mk1

quick question...

how much does the 17-40 F4L costs now adays...
It should be around P34K in Hidalgo.

they are both L lenses, F/2.8 on a wide-end is not that needed, besides almost 50% of the price tag is the difference. quality-wise they are almost par on each other. go for your needs not by the price tags.

Since we're on the subject of wide-angles...

Has anyone tried using Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on 400D? I plan to buy the 400D body only since my sister already has a 50mm and a telephoto that she's willing to lend me. And I keep reading that the lens included in the kit isn't so good. I should love to buy the 16-35 f/2.8, but the price is too steep. So I'll settle for Tamron. What do you think? I'd be taking photos of landscapes and buildings - old churches, etc. , but i should like to be able to take pictures in low light too. Oh, and is the Tamron available in the Philippines? and how much do you think? if anyone knows of a better lens, i'd be grateful for the suggestion. thanks in advance.

The tamron is available in quiapo. I think it is 22.5k in Henry's.

If you're taking shots of landscapes. The kit lens is good at f/8 to f/11. In my opinion, try the kit lens first before you judge it. Its not all that bad. 4k versus 22.5k is big. But the kit lens would have a harder time in lowlight.

Since we're on the subject of wide-angles...

Has anyone tried using Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on 400D? I plan to buy the 400D body only since my sister already has a 50mm and a telephoto that she's willing to lend me. And I keep reading that the lens included in the kit isn't so good. I should love to buy the 16-35 f/2.8, but the price is too steep. So I'll settle for Tamron. What do you think? I'd be taking photos of landscapes and buildings - old churches, etc. , but i should like to be able to take pictures in low light too. Oh, and is the Tamron available in the Philippines? and how much do you think? if anyone knows of a better lens, i'd be grateful for the suggestion. thanks in advance.

I have the 28-75 f2.8 Di and the 17-35 f2.8-4 Di. Both are very good lenses. L-like in IQ but at 1/4 or so the cost. The 17-35 is best at 17-24mm. It's not really soft at 35mm, but you have to stop it down a bit to get the sharpness at 17mm. At 17mm f2.8 it is plenty sharp across the frame. Of course, I am using a cropper dslr, so I can't telly you if it will do well on the edges with a 5d. But I have seen some shots with it on a 5d and it is good.

I sold my 28-75 because I got a 24-105L. But kept the 17-35 in case I go FF later on. I got a good copy of this lens.

Compared to the 18-55 kit lens, they are about the same in the center. But at the edges and corners, the tamron beats the kit lens, especially wide open. The tamron also is contrastrier, snappier. At f8-f11, it is hard to tell the two apart except if you pixel peep and if you look at the edge/corners. The tamron wins here. BTW, I am assuming your kit lens is good. There are a lot of mkII kit lens that are really bad optically. My copy was good, so the comparison was fair.

Also, compared to the Sigma (w/c was a bomb), this thing doesn't flare as much. And unlike the sigma, it uses a 77mm filter not 80mm and is not bulbous like a swollen eye. No scratching of the lens. And there is no focus issues with it with my old 300d, d60 (w/c is very accurate in AF)), 20d. It's motor is not ring usm, but you won't miss any shots, especially if you are doing archi work :Grin:.

It is small, light, cheap in price, but performs very well. Highly recommended.

I got mine for P28k way 2-3 years ago. But I think it is much, much lower than that now. I don't shoot in this range, but I will keep this copy. I got a good one. Very contrasty and sharp. Might also re-acquire the 28-75 Di. I miss it's sharpness. It's much better than my 24-105 in sharpness.

oops. made a mistake. My eyes played tricks on me. I thought it was a 17-35 di that was asked. Sorry about that.

In any case, ,17-50 has been getting good feedback and reviews all around. It's been compared in the same breath as the 17-55 IS. Never has a lens gotten this much attention since their legendary 28-75 Di.

.

Thanks Roget. Thanks Mel.

It's good to have lots of choices when I go shopping.

you can also look into the Canon EF-S 17-55, its got the quality of an L lens daw..

you can also look into the Canon EF-S 17-55, its got the quality of an L lens daw..

oh yeah i've recently tried this lens out and it was impressive! it was really fast and sharp, L quality nga. the only thing that's keeping me from buying it is the fact that you can't use it once you switch to ful frame which i am still dreaming about as of the moment. hehehe

I have both. I still prefer the 16-35.

Not sure how an older 17-35 fares with the newer 17-40, but I've dug up an old comparative review (http://www.fredmiranda.com/17_35VS16_35/) by Fred Miranda on the 16-35L.

Go with the 17-40 f4 L. It's much lighter, cheaper and better than the 16-35. The only advantages of the 16-35 it's 1-stop faster and a 1mm wider.

i would disagree on this...
cheaper yes...
lighter yes...
better...not quite!
and the new 16-35LII should even improve on it further...

ive had both lenses...
16-35 is just much better than the 17-40 specially on the 5D makikita mo talaga ang difference:)
yes price wise its steep...but if you can afford it...its the way to go!