Canon L Glass

[Turnerea]

I'm looking for some wide angle L glass from Canon. I had always figured I would get the 16-35 once I had the money, but I didn't realize how much less expensive the 17-40 is. I shoot almost exclusively landscapes, and have a tripod with me at all times... so I was thinking that the f/4 on the 17 compared with f/2.8 on the 16 wouldn't hinder me too much. Then I'd spend the difference on getting the 100mm macro lens which I've been scheming on as well.

So my main question is, is the only difference between the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 17-40 f/4 the max aperture? There is no large difference in glass quality that I'm missing out on if I go with the 17?

Thanks for your thoughts....

Erik

 

[Dao]

16 vs 17

 

[Tighearnach]

Have u considered the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Supposed to be a cracking lens.....

 

[GeneralBenson]

Have u considered the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Supposed to be a cracking lens.....

I agree. Keep in mind that 16 or 17 on a aps-c camera isn't really that wide. It's only equivalent to ~24m in 35mm film standards. If you don't have plans of upgrading to full frame at some point and that amount of wide angle is ok for you then consider something like a 17-55mm f/2.8 by canon, sigma or tamron, or if you want somethign really wide, the tokina listed above is good, or some of the 10-20/22mm lenses. There are lots of options, and if you don't plans to upgrade to full frame, I wouldn't think the either of the lenses you mentions are your best choices.

 

[Derrel]

Keep in mind the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L, the original version, was so bad a lens that Canon had to redesign it and bring it up to a Mark II version, so the 16-35 that was so easily out-performed by the 17-40L in the review linked to by Dao above 16 vs 17

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images9/17-f4-crop.jpg
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images9/16-f4-crop.jpg

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images9/16-lamp.jpg
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images9/17-lamp.jpg

is not testing the "new" 16-35 Mark II, but the first version of the lens.

As far as the 17-55 f/2.8 IS-USM lens versus the 17-40 L...I'm not that impressed by the pictures I am seeing out of the 17-55 f/2.8 on the new 7D's high-density sensor. One big question is--do you plan on keeping the lens for a long time with the idea of updating to the 7D body some day within the next couple of years? If so, you'll want the absolute best-performing wide zoom money can buy.

 

[GeneralBenson]

Yeah, but I've also seen examples of the 5DmkII's sensor out-resolving just about any L glass.

 

[inTempus]

I have a 17-40 and you can have it when I'm dead, not a minute before. It's an amazing lens. I thought I wanted the 16-35 at one point, but I'll be damned if I'll trade my 17-40 for it, and I don't need two lenses in the same focal range. So, I'm sticking with my 17-40.

 

[inTempus]

Yeah, but I've also seen examples of the 5DmkII's sensor out-resolving just about any L glass.

If the 5D2 out-resolves L glass, then what about the 50D and 7D? Both have higher pixel density than the 5D2.

 

[Derrel]

Canon 16-35mm v Nikon 17-35mm: Intro

Canon is (in)famous for poor wide zoom performance. Look at two comparable vintage lenses (2006) of basically identical specifications. For those wondering why many Nikon lenses cost more than comparably specified Canon L glass, this test is one of several that shows why Nikon charges more money for its wide zooms.

If one wishes to see the performance of the world's best wide angle zoom, it is compared here
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

against some Canon L lenses, both zoom and prime, as well as Zeiss primes. And take note: the Canon 16-35/2.8 L Mark II and Zeiss 17-35 f/2.8 lenses were cherry-picked, supreme examples: "Andrew Gough, of Planetwide, scrutinised six copies of the L before purchasing this best-of-breed sample. Similarly, the Zeiss N was chosen from a batch of five for his personal use. The Nikon is the same sample used in the other tests, adapted for use on the 1Ds III by our own adaptor."
All three lenses are compared on a single, high quality Canon pro body.

 

[Montana]

I don't see where anyone asked about Nikon glass in this thread.

 

[DScience]

I don't see where anyone asked about Nikon glass in this thread.

Well I find it interesting, so :chatty:

 

[Montana]

I don't see where anyone asked about Nikon glass in this thread.

Well I find it interesting, so :chatty:

So start your own thread.:thumbdown:

 

[Montana]

If 21mm is wide enough, I would strongly recommend you researching this lens for landscape work:

Zeiss | Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZE Lens for Canon EF | 1762848

 

[Derrel]

I don't see where anybody asked about Zeiss glass in this thread.:lmao:

The OP asked about the 16-35 L versus the 17-40 L. I pointed the OP to a review showing how a doubly-expensive 16-35 f/2.8 L lens tested out quite inferior to the 17-40 L he asked about.

Later, I pointed out a test of Canon L-, Zeiss-N, and Nikon G series wide angle zoom lenses so people can be informed as to how well the 16-35 f/2.8 L-II performs compared to other choices, which I might point out, are two lenses serious LANDSCAPE shooters, like the OP, are using on Canon bodies--so they can have some decent glass. The OP asked specifically about the 16-35 f/2.8 L lens, so I pointed him to a test so he can see how good that lens is.

Pretty hard to follow sometimes, isn't it Nevada?

 

[Montana]

LOL, but the Zeiss is in a Canon mount. Point taken.

I am following you just fine Dick.