Canon 16-35L f/2.8 II vs. 17-40L f/4 Head-to-Head Review

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Rich Christie, Mar 8, 2010.

  1. Rich Christie

    Rich Christie TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Head-2-Head Reviews

    I bought the 17-40 f/4 because the vignetting on the 16-35 f/2.8 (original) was so awful. I've been interested to see how the new 16-35 iimproved on that.

    In these tests, the cheaper L lens performs just as well as the more expensive wide angle zoom. Probably good to know..

    Anyone else have similar findings? Or opposing,,,,?

    Cheers,
    Rich
     
  2. ELDUDER

    ELDUDER TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norman, OK
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Interesting to see...I was considering the 17-40 for my next lens purchase, good to know it is on the same ground as the much more expensive 16-35.
     
  3. Rich Christie

    Rich Christie TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I feel the same way. I have long heard as much, but it;s good to see confirmation.
     
  4. sinjans

    sinjans TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada (yes by')
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    16-35 is superfast and thats pretty much it. if you dont need the speed then 17-40 is the way to go. So for for me its been rendering some splendid IQ
     
  5. Montana

    Montana TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Eastern Montana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I read, and read about both before I decided. The 17-40 is a great performer, but there are two things that the 16-35 can do better......

    16mm
    f/2.8


    If neither of them are important to you, then get the 17-40.
     
  6. Hardrock

    Hardrock TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Dallas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I bought the 17-40 due to the extra cost of the 16-35 was to much and its been great! But there is quite difference between 16 and 17mm so if you want wide you may consider the 16-35.
    See http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/focal_length_comparisons.htm
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2010
  7. Montana

    Montana TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Eastern Montana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I bought the 16-35 mark II for the extra speed.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
canon 16 to 35 l vs 17 to 35 l
,

canon 16-35 ii vs 17-40

,

canon 16-35 vs 17-40

,
canon 16-35 vs 35l
,
canon 16-35l ii review
,
canon 16-40 l
,
canon 17 40 vs 16 35
,
canon 17 40 vs 16 35 ii
,

canon 17-40 vs 16-35

,
canon 17-40 vs 16-35 ii