I was looking at some flare comparisons between the new 16-35 4 L and the 17-40 4 L and to mu surprise it seems the 17-40 controls flare a little better. Does anyone have experience with both lenses to confirm this?
I can personally confirm that among my lenses (including the old 24-70 2.
the 17-40 does best, but I was expecting newer zoom lenses to do better in reducing flare (especially considering the price hike).
For me reducing flare is very important, much more than increased edge performance. Flare can really destroy an otherwise good interior picture because flare around windows will wash off colors and details of surrounding furniture beyond repair.
I do interior photography. I am pretty sure that what you are seeing around the windows is mostly or completely due to sensor overload, which is an electronic phenomenon, not flare, which is an optical phenomenon. Sensor overload is a fact of life with digital photography, just as halation is a fact of life with film. In some cases, perhaps, there will also be some flare mixed in with the sensor overload (sometimes referred to as bloom), and that may depend upon the lens (perhaps a defect), a filter (if any), whether there is any dust or dirt on the optical surfaces, and how strong the exterior lighting is relative to the interior. I have the Canon 17-40 and I would say that it has pretty respectable flare suppression, so I really don't think that is the issue, or at least not the predominant issue. I also own the Canon 16-35 F:4, which I think is a much better lens in many respects, but a different lens is really not going to solve your problem. What will solve the problem is either controlling the exterior light by putting large neutral density filters over the windows, scrimming the windows in some way, using supplementary lighting to bring the level of the interior lighting closer to the exterior, or shooting when the exterior light level is closer to that of the interior (especially at twilight).
