Canon 17-40 v 16-35 II

[NigelC]

Sorry this has been asked before I'm sure. I'm about to get down to replacing stolen gear after finally getting close to (not quite) the insurance money. I previously had a 17-40 which I thought was a decent lens and increasingly used with my 70-200 f4 IS as my general purpose travel kit (recently adding a 100L IS macro), leaving the 24-105 at home.

I've been slightly tempted by the 16-35 as the price gap has reduced a bit and there is a decent cashback on both lenses in the UK at the moment. However, there are many opinions around that the image quality is essentially the same, the only advantage being the extra stop. Well that is nice for available light of course but with the high ISO performance of the 5D2 I can get by without it. It would mostly be used for buildings/streetscenes/landscape and looking back over EXIF data for my 17-40 images, they are mostly well stopped down. I know the 16-35 has an advantage in the corners at 16/17 mm up to about f8, but realistically, I'm going to be cropping the corners off anyway in correcting for the barrel distortion.

So I can't really see any compelling reasons to choose the 16-35 over the 17-40, for my uses. If I was doing weddings indoors in available light, the answer would I think be different. (Also, the difference in price is about the cost of replacing our broken dishwasher!).Relative to the Zeiss 21, or 17/24 TSE lenses both are in the same ballpark.

Anyone want to advance a view that the IQ of the 16-35, overall,  is a significant step up from 17-40?

[KenS]

Perhaps the new Tokina 16-28 mm lens should be considered as another alternative?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10070501tokina16_28mmnikoncanon.asp

It got a good review in the current issue of Popular Photography.

In the past I've rented lenses I'm considering and tried shooting images of interest to me (as well as some 'objective' tests such as test charts, brick walls, and telephone poles placed in the corners).  I weigh the results of printed comparisons among shots from subject matter I care about more heavily.  Even this approach is not foolproof however because of variations between copies of the same lens.

[NigelC]

Looked at Pop Photography website but couldn't find review. Apparently it doesn't take filters!

[stever]

if you do a search, you will find almost endless discussion

the-digital-picture.com has mouse-over resolution chart comparisons at various apertures and focal lengths

Tokina has been making some pretty good lenses, although i've read Pop-Photo tests for 20+ years, and they are not my guide for making serious purchases.  the Tokina is also larger and heavier than the 16-35 in addition to not taking a filter.

i have the 17-40 and it's okay from f8 to f11 and i seriously try to avoid shooting at larger apertures as edges are very soft.  at 24mm it's not any better than the 24-105.  i would certainly recommend testing before buying - there's quite a bit of lens-lens variation.

if i were going to spend 16-35II money on a wide angle i'd probably end up with a Zeiss 21 or Canon TS.  it's really a question of what you're going to do with the lens

[terence_patrick]

I prefer the 17-40 and even sold my 16-35 because I didn't think it was worth keeping around. I shoot commercial lifestyle and find the image quality to be perfect for my style. Plus, I can use all the same filter sizes as my other lenses. The 16-35 II has an 82mm filter which is both more expensive and hard to find in a pinch. 

[Paulo Bizarro]

After using both lenses, this is my advice:

1. The 16-35 MKII is better at f/4 than the 17-40 at f/4 (the former will be stopped down one stop, whereas the latter will be wide open). So if you plan to shoot a lot at f/4, the 16-#% MKII will be better. But if you plan shooting at f/8 and above, the 17-40 is perfectly fine.

2. If you plan on using square filters (like on holders, Lee type), you will need something like a Cokin X-Pro filter holder for the 16-35MKII. These filters are way bigger than the more mundane 100mm filters.

[Ken Bennett]

the 16-#% MKII

Too funny, this is what I call my 16-35/II when I look at corner sharpness in a lot of my photos at any aperture. Grrr. %&$^.

[DaveCurtis]

Hi Nigel,

I own the 16-35mm Mrk2 and the Zeiss 21 ZE. I use to own the 17-40mm but upgraded to the 16-35mm.

The 16-35mm is sharper in the outer zone and corners however the difference diminishes as you stop down however the 16-35 still remains sharper in the corners but not that sharp. On a full frame camera the 16-35mm is no match for my zeiss 21mm. The Zeiss corner sharpness is considerably better at f4 than than the Canon at f8 or f11.

The 16-35mm seems to be strongest from 16-24 and weakest at 35mm. In fact my 24-105 is sharper at 35mm. And that's why I own  a Zeiss 35mm f2 ZE. (The Canon 35 f1.4 would be another good option)

However you say that you will be using the lens stopped down and cropped. If that is the case why not just stick with the 17-40mm.

The best lens for landscape would be the Zeiss 21mm and the new Canon TS-Es. Architecture, go with the new Canon TS-Es.

[stever]

since i only have a couple weeks before my 17-40 is out of warranty, i reviewed my test results before and after it's first trip to Canon under warranty.

after doing whatever they did (Canon repair descriptions are vague),  the extreme lack of resolution on one side (or the other - not both) at f4 and 24mm and wider was slightly improved (and sometimes switched from one side to the other - this also changes with focal length), but getting both edges acceptable still requires f8.  At 30 and 40mm both edges are acceptable at f4 - and improve at f5.6 and f8 - pretty comparable to 24-105.  So using the 17-40 as a short normal is not unreasonable.  it may be possible to find a copy that has reasonably (within 20 or 30% would be nice) symentrical resolution at shorter focal lengths and wide apertures - but maybe not.

i strongly believe the 17-40 changes focus with focal length (although haven't done a thorough test), so it matters at what focal length you do the micro-adjustment.  i'd suggest setting it at the long end where focus is more critical.  for wide angle shots, if focus is critical (which it isn't very at f8 anyhow) - and you have time and it's not too dark - you can use contrast detection autofocus in liveview, or magnify and focus by eye in liveview

from the standpoint of shooting at higher ISO, the more i use LR 3, the more i'm impressed with it's noise reduction.  also pretty impressed with the lens correction for the 17-40 and 24-105

[Lightsmith]

I needed the f2.8 of the 16-35mm II but it took 4 copies, with the 4th one having to be sent to Canon for adjustment to get a usable lens. The 17-40mm produces sharper images edge to edge from the hundreds of image files I have reviewed. For static subject it would be my choice.