HELP:Which to purchase? The 16-35mm L or the 17mm-40mm L lens?

[hassiman]

Hi,

I am debating between purchasing either the 16-35mm L or the 17mm-40mm L lenses for a 5DMII full frame camera. I was just wondering if one is a better performer than the other on a FF body... I may also use it on a 60D as well.

Other than the difference in focal length it is good to note that the 16-35mm L is a true Parafocal optic... ergo it mainatins its point of focus when zoomed.

This for street photography and Landscape work.

Anyone have both of these and care to comment?

[Kirk Gittings]

In the mid F stops they are virtually the same. The 16 is much better at large apertures.

[semillerimages]

I have the 17-40 and tested against the 16-35 II and I'll agree with Kirk that the middle fstops they are virtually identical.
What I found to be extraordinary is that the 16-35 can be pointed directly into the sun with little flare but the 17-40 will flare like mad...
This difference wasn't enough for me to drop the dough on the 16-35 though.

*steve

[Kirk Gittings]

This difference wasn't enough for me to drop the dough on the 16-35 though.

Me too.

[DaveCurtis]

If you can afford it I would go with the 16-35mm.

I sold my 17-40mm as I was not that impressed, especially with the corners and outer zone. The 16-35 was better but the difference wasn't huge.

I used it mainly for landscape use and print at A2 with my Epson 3800. The 16-35mm was sold and replaced by the Zeiss 21mm and Zeiss 35mm. This was a major improvement at the loss of zoom flexibility.
After a comparison with my 24-105mm I found this lens to be sharper than my 16-35mm f2.8 II at 28-35mm.

Hope this helps.

[K.C.]

I used it mainly for landscape use and print at A2 with my Epson 3800. The 16-35mm was sold and replaced by the Zeiss 21mm and Zeiss 35mm. This was a major improvement at the loss of zoom flexibility.
After a comparison with my 24-105mm I found this lens to be sharper than my 16-35mm f2.8 II at 28-35mm.

You found a Zeiss prime sharper than a Canon zoom ?

Well Duh

I've owned all these lenses, currently using the 16-35 and it's a great lens. The Zeiss 21 is however an exceptional lens and I don't think any zoom can compete with it.

[JohnKoerner]

Hi,
I am debating between purchasing either the 16-35mm L or the 17mm-40mm L lenses for a 5DMII full frame camera. I was just wondering if one is a better performer than the other on a FF body... I may also use it on a 60D as well.
Other than the difference in focal length it is good to note that the 16-35mm L is a true Parafocal optic... ergo it mainatins its point of focus when zoomed.
This for street photography and Landscape work.
Anyone have both of these and care to comment?

Have you considered the 24-70 f/2.8L?

Seems to be a better street choice than either of the lenses you mentioned, it's built like a tank, and has to be at least as good or better than the lenses you mentioned. I know most people "who have tried both" prefer the 24-70L over the 24-105L ...

But, of the two you mentioned, I'd say the 17-40 would be the better dual-purpose lens.

Jack


.

[jaker]

I would agree with above that the 17-40 lens is very usable when shooting around  F8/16 which is fine for tripod mounted landscape and some architecture. However when given the choice of lenses and I have time,  I always revert to my 24-70 unless I need that extra width as this is a noticeably sharper lens. I shoot with a IDs mk3 and this combination of lenses is hard to beat for most occasions - For the extra little bit of speed that the 16-35 will give you is not worth the difference unless you intend to do a lot of hand held street work - just push up the iso on a 17-40 on the few occasions that need to use it. It is also a much lighter lens and not so obtrusive- some thing to bare in mind when working in crowded situations. In my opinion save your money and get a17-40 & 24-70 combo.

jaker

www.jameskerr.co.uk

[Ellis Vener]

You really need to test the individual lenses of both the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L  and the EF 17-40mm f/4L.  I've owned and rented both  great and not so good  versions of both.

[schrodingerscat]

I used the 16-35 II with both a 30D and 5D II and it was a stellar performer(even at 16mm). A bit soft at the corners on the 5D wide open, but to be expected. Excellent color and contrast and little distortion. One of the pluses is that it's an enclosed design and adding a filter virtually seals it.