Canon 17-40mm f/4 L VS Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II - Which one?

[MarksterLew]

Hi guys,

I've been looking day and night for the perfect lenses that would satisfy my needs, and style of photography.
I've looked at the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L, the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II, and some other L lenses.

I shoot with a Canon 550D, but plan on switching to a FF, possibly a 5D Mark ii... in the near future.
My current setup is a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3, and Canon 50mm f/1.8

The reason that I want to get a L lenses is that I want to get the best lenses without buying other ones and spending more money along the road.
I've read that the Canon 17-55mm would be a good choice, but image quality is a major factor to me.

I shot mostly landscape, nature photography, architecture, and a bit of street photography.

I can't really decide what lenses would be the best lenses, with a superb sharpness, lenses flare, and all that.
I was leaning towards the 17-40 because of the price tag of $750 USED, but looked how the 16-35mm performs is amazing.
Budget wise would depend, as I am a student with not a ton of money.... so $1000 -1100 would be my max.

Want to buy one great walk around lenses with great image quality and focal length.
I also was looking at the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L as well.. will consider it too.
Any advice would be very appreciated, as I went through hundreds of websites comparing them.

 

[TimGreyPhotography]

I shoot the same stuff you do and I ultimatly settled on the Canon 24mm f/1.4L II. Sharpness is really important to me. This lens has virtually no barrel distortion. And the colors in this lens really pop. It is also sharper then both the 17-40L and the 16-35LII. Try to get away from the thought that you need a zoom lens. Before I went full frame I used to have a 60D and a Tokina 11-16mm. I used this as a walk around lens and 95% of my shots were at 11mm.

 

[bratkinson]

Like TimGreyPhotography, I had a 60D as well, and did a fair amount of walk around work. My favorite was the 24-105L. But I also used the 16-35L as well on my most recent trip to Chicago.

There are those that will say that 24 isn't wide enough on a crop body, and for 'tight' situations, perhaps it is. But outdoors, walking around, there's always room to back up a bit when needed. I bought the 16-35 as an 'overlapping range complement' to the 24-105 mostly for indoor work, but as a walk-around, there's many times I wanted more tele than it could provide.

 

[jaomul]

There are loads of options and none wrong per se, but if you buy the 17-55 IS f2.8 canon you are buying a great lens that you may be able to sell without to much loss should you upgrade to ff. The 17-55 is often referred to as an unbranded L lens, due to its quality etc, but because its only designed for crop it cant get the (snobby)L classification

 

[TCampbell]

You mentioned you may want to switch to a full frame body in the future. Keep in mind that the angle of view provided by the lens will change when used on a full-frame body.

For example... a 16-35mm lens on an APS-C crop-frame sensor body provides a comfortably "wide" angle through "normal" angle of view. When you use that on a full frame body it will provide a "very wide" angle through "moderately wide" angle.

 

[MarksterLew]

I shoot the same stuff you do and I ultimatly settled on the Canon 24mm f/1.4L II. Sharpness is really important to me. This lens has virtually no barrel distortion. And the colors in this lens really pop. It is also sharper then both the 17-40L and the 16-35LII. Try to get away from the thought that you need a zoom lens. Before I went full frame I used to have a 60D and a Tokina 11-16mm. I used this as a walk around lens and 95% of my shots were at 11mm.

I think that the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L is a great lenses, but maybe a bit too wide on a FF. It would be a great lenses for a cropped at the moment, but I don't want to carry about many lenses when shooting.
I may just get a Canon 35mm f/1.4 L, as it would be a 56mm, but great focal length on a FF. I agree with you how a zoom lens isn't really necessary, so I'm thinking a Canon 35mm would be a good lenses.

 

[MarksterLew]

Like TimGreyPhotography, I had a 60D as well, and did a fair amount of walk around work. My favorite was the 24-105L. But I also used the 16-35L as well on my most recent trip to Chicago.

There are those that will say that 24 isn't wide enough on a crop body, and for 'tight' situations, perhaps it is. But outdoors, walking around, there's always room to back up a bit when needed. I bought the 16-35 as an 'overlapping range complement' to the 24-105 mostly for indoor work, but as a walk-around, there's many times I wanted more tele than it could provide.

How was the performance of the 16-35L? Was it the 16-35L ii?
Many say that the Canon 35mm is the new 50mm, the 24mm would maybe be too wide. Not sure on that..
I would probably get a Canon 17-40mm because of the price tag, and the Canon 35mm L.

 

[MarksterLew]

There are loads of options and none wrong per se, but if you buy the 17-55 IS f2.8 canon you are buying a great lens that you may be able to sell without to much loss should you upgrade to ff. The 17-55 is often referred to as an unbranded L lens, due to its quality etc, but because its only designed for crop it cant get the (snobby)L classification

Is there any differences between the 17-55mm and the 17-40 or 16-35?
Sharpness, IS, Image quality etc...?
The Canon 17-55 is great because of the IS, and great aperture. But is it really worth having f/2.8 over the f/4 on the 17-40?

 

[MarksterLew]

You mentioned you may want to switch to a full frame body in the future. Keep in mind that the angle of view provided by the lens will change when used on a full-frame body.

For example... a 16-35mm lens on an APS-C crop-frame sensor body provides a comfortably "wide" angle through "normal" angle of view. When you use that on a full frame body it will provide a "very wide" angle through "moderately wide" angle.

Yes, thank you TCampbell.
Do you own any of the lenses? 17-55, 17-40, 16-35?
Don't know which one is right for me. Price, image quality, aperture... :s

 

[Big Mike]

There are loads of options and none wrong per se, but if you buy the 17-55 IS f2.8 canon you are buying a great lens that you may be able to sell without to much loss should you upgrade to ff. The 17-55 is often referred to as an unbranded L lens, due to its quality etc, but because its only designed for crop it cant get the (snobby)L classification

Is there any differences between the 17-55mm and the 17-40 or 16-35?
Sharpness, IS, Image quality etc...?
The Canon 17-55 is great because of the IS, and great aperture. But is it really worth having f/2.8 over the f/4 on the 17-40?

The big difference is that the 17-55mm is an EF-S, and thus not compatible with full frame. Also, it's not an L lens...and while it's certainly not a 'junky' lens, it is prone to dust getting inside and the IS system seems to have trouble standing up to professional use.

The 16-35mm F2.8 L II, is a somewhat new lens, and I've heard it is a nice improvement over the previous version. The 17-40mm F4L is an older design and might be due for an update to help people really get the most out of their high resolution cameras.

The 17-40mm F4 L, is a pretty good lens. But when you compare the price of it, to the price of the 16-35mm, it's not hard to guess which is the 'better' lens.

A big issue is whether you need the extra stop from F4 to F2.8.
DOF probably isn't an issue with such wide lenses, and while an extra stop of light is always nice to have...it's really on the difference from ISO 400 to 800 (one stop)....which isn't as much of an issue as it used to be.

But if you're a journalist and you need fast shutter speeds, that one stop may be worth it. If you're a landscape photographer and you're shooting at F8 anyway, then it doesn't matter.

As for lens flare, I've heard the 16-35mm wasn't great....not sure if they were referring to the old or new version. A friend of mine, who is a pro and can afford any lens he might want, is big on using lens flare. He hated the flare characteristics from the 16-35mm, and wasn't happy with the 17-40mm either. He uses an EF-s 10-22mm and he has modified it so that it will mount to full frame or APS-H (1D cameras).

I have the 17-40mm, and while I like it, it doesn't often blow me away in terms of sharpness and general IQ. Maybe my standards are higher than they used to be.

 

[MarksterLew]

There are loads of options and none wrong per se, but if you buy the 17-55 IS f2.8 canon you are buying a great lens that you may be able to sell without to much loss should you upgrade to ff. The 17-55 is often referred to as an unbranded L lens, due to its quality etc, but because its only designed for crop it cant get the (snobby)L classification

Is there any differences between the 17-55mm and the 17-40 or 16-35?
Sharpness, IS, Image quality etc...?
The Canon 17-55 is great because of the IS, and great aperture. But is it really worth having f/2.8 over the f/4 on the 17-40?

The big difference is that the 17-55mm is an EF-S, and thus not compatible with full frame. Also, it's not an L lens...and while it's certainly not a 'junky' lens, it is prone to dust getting inside and the IS system seems to have trouble standing up to professional use.

The 16-35mm F2.8 L II, is a somewhat new lens, and I've heard it is a nice improvement over the previous version. The 17-40mm F4L is an older design and might be due for an update to help people really get the most out of their high resolution cameras.

The 17-40mm F4 L, is a pretty good lens. But when you compare the price of it, to the price of the 16-35mm, it's not hard to guess which is the 'better' lens.

A big issue is whether you need the extra stop from F4 to F2.8.
DOF probably isn't an issue with such wide lenses, and while an extra stop of light is always nice to have...it's really on the difference from ISO 400 to 800 (one stop)....which isn't as much of an issue as it used to be.

But if you're a journalist and you need fast shutter speeds, that one stop may be worth it. If you're a landscape photographer and you're shooting at F8 anyway, then it doesn't matter.

As for lens flare, I've heard the 16-35mm wasn't great....not sure if they were referring to the old or new version. A friend of mine, who is a pro and can afford any lens he might want, is big on using lens flare. He hated the flare characteristics from the 16-35mm, and wasn't happy with the 17-40mm either. He uses an EF-s 10-22mm and he has modified it so that it will mount to full frame or APS-H (1D cameras).

I have the 17-40mm, and while I like it, it doesn't often blow me away in terms of sharpness and general IQ. Maybe my standards are higher than they used to be.

Thank you for your detailed response.
In terms of sharpness, and IQ, would it be possible to maybe post a photo how it performs.
As an L lens, I was thinking it would be significantly better then ex. 17-55.

What lens would you consider to have an outstanding IQ and sharpness?

 

[EIngerson]

I had the same question and decided on the 17-40. I went back and looked at all my wide angle shots and 2 of them were below F4. Less that 50 were under F8. I realized I had no reason to spend the extra money for the 16-35.

Maybe I was lucky, but my copy of the 17-40 is incredibly sharp. I love it.

 

[MarksterLew]

I had the same question and decided on the 17-40. I went back and looked at all my wide angle shots and 2 of them were below F4. Less that 50 were under F8. I realized I had no reason to spend the extra money for the 16-35.

Maybe I was lucky, but my copy of the 17-40 is incredibly sharp. I love it.

I just looked at my roll of photos I took last week, and all of them were at f/4.5 to about f/5.
I couldn't agree more. The 17-40 is the lens I leaning towards anyways.

Would you care to post a few photos with the 17-40? Appreciate it.

 

[Hardrock]

I love my 17-40 on my 7d! I have quite a few images with the 17-40 in the landscape section at Treyharrison.zenfolio.com

 

[stevensondrive]

I just looked at my roll of photos I took last week, and all of them were at f/4.5 to about f/5.
I couldn't agree more. The 17-40 is the lens I leaning towards anyways.

Would you care to post a few photos with the 17-40? Appreciate it.

what did you end up getting??