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

[Rich Christie]

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

 

[ELDUDER]

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.

 

[Rich Christie]

I feel the same way. I have long heard as much, but it;s good to see confirmation.

 

[sinjans]

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

 

[Montana]

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.

 

[Hardrock]

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.

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

 

[Montana]

I bought the 16-35 mark II for the extra speed.