DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 16-35 f2.8L usm vs. 17-40 f4L
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/05/2011 03:50:24 PM · #1
Anybody want to throw their .02 in on this one? I realize I get the extra f-stops but what about image quality etc? Worth the price difference?
03/05/2011 03:53:22 PM · #2
17-40 is inferior in the corners. Not as big a deal on a crop sensor. I've used both extensively and the price difference is probably not worth it unless that extra stop is important. I do like using the 16-35 at night when I don't want star trails, but otherwise the 17-40 was just fine.
03/05/2011 03:59:08 PM · #3
ok good deal...

Know anything about the difference between 16-35 usm and 16-35 usm ii? Heard the corners were sharper with the ii?
03/05/2011 07:12:51 PM · #4
I've heard that too, but I can't confirm through personal use.
03/06/2011 05:09:25 AM · #5
Alright...what about the 24-70 2.8l?
03/06/2011 11:52:07 AM · #6
Originally posted by jbpk11:

Alright...what about the 24-70 2.8l?


It's good for building up your biceps. The thing is a beast. Excellent lens though. Probably one of the classic L lenses, although many times the 24-105 does as good a job and people have the 24-70 vs. 24-105 debate just as often as the 16-35 vs. 17-40.
03/06/2011 03:36:14 PM · #7
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by jbpk11:

Alright...what about the 24-70 2.8l?


It's good for building up your biceps. The thing is a beast...


That it is. Although it is dimensionally not all that much bigger than the 16-35, it is quite a bit heavier, 950g vs. 640g for the 16-35 II.
The 240-70 is the lens that lives on my 5D. It's an exceptional lens, a zoom that I don't hesitate to shoot wide open, and I am a harsh judge of optical quality.

Message edited by author 2011-03-06 15:37:47.
03/06/2011 05:45:12 PM · #8
I have 17-40 L , it's soft in the corner, but i love this lense. There you can see some comparison test.
the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
03/06/2011 05:56:17 PM · #9
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by jbpk11:

Alright...what about the 24-70 2.8l?


It's good for building up your biceps. The thing is a beast. Excellent lens though. Probably one of the classic L lenses, although many times the 24-105 does as good a job and people have the 24-70 vs. 24-105 debate just as often as the 16-35 vs. 17-40.


I'm always amazed to see such small lenses referred to as "heavy" "beast" or whatever. Seriously these are tiny lenses compared to most everything else on the market. What about this lens makes it such a beast? Is the general population really that weak that they can't hold a camera and a lens? How do these people possibly raise children who are quite a bit heavier and and don't have a nice handle to hold onto! :D

To stay on topic. The 17-40 lens is good on a 1.6 crop camera, a 1.3 crop or full frame really gets into the soft corners of the lens. The other drawback is you can't take it to F2.8. The difference between the 16-35 and 16-35II for me was pretty big I noticed quite a difference in corners and also a nice bump in color and contrast.

Message edited by author 2011-03-06 17:58:05.
03/06/2011 06:04:49 PM · #10
The best reviews and comparisons to be found here:

the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx
03/06/2011 07:55:57 PM · #11
There is also an older class lens 17-35 f2.8L if you can be lucky enough to find a nice minty one they are absolutely fantastic. Around the same price used as a 17-40 is new and a lot better IMO but I like the f2.8.
03/06/2011 09:00:26 PM · #12
Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by jbpk11:

Alright...what about the 24-70 2.8l?


It's good for building up your biceps. The thing is a beast. Excellent lens though. Probably one of the classic L lenses, although many times the 24-105 does as good a job and people have the 24-70 vs. 24-105 debate just as often as the 16-35 vs. 17-40.


I'm always amazed to see such small lenses referred to as "heavy" "beast" or whatever. Seriously these are tiny lenses compared to most everything else on the market. What about this lens makes it such a beast? Is the general population really that weak that they can't hold a camera and a lens? How do these people possibly raise children who are quite a bit heavier and and don't have a nice handle to hold onto! :D


Maybe it's just cuz it looks like it should be lighter. It always surprises me when I work with it. But you're right, it's not like it's 10 pounds. But you don't manipulate your child's weight with your wrists for hours on end. :)
03/06/2011 09:18:40 PM · #13
One word: Rent

Rent them both and see if you can tell. I have the 17-40 and I don't notice the soft corners, but I don't have FF.
03/07/2011 04:07:42 AM · #14
I plan on going FF in the next year or so...Reviews online and what I've heard about 17-40 on here have got me thinking short-term (17-40) vs long-term (16-35 or 24-70). Don't want to have to worry about soft corners when I finally decide on FF. I really like what I've seen on the 24-70, but that would probably take away alot of my landscape opportunities while using the 40D...Any thoughts?
03/07/2011 09:28:36 AM · #15
Yes, the 24-70 on APS-C is limiting for landscape. I shot a lot of panos for a couple years because of that limitation. But heck, I still shoot a lot of panos :-)
One thought is, buy a good used copy of the 17-40, and re-sell it when you go FF, if you are not satisfied with the 17-40 on FF. Personally, my copy of the 17-40 is good enough that i will continue to use it. I don't see enough benefit from switching to the 16-35. And I am a pretty tough judge of optical quality; I do not tolerate poor glass.
03/10/2011 01:12:24 PM · #16
Found a pretty sweet deal on a 17-40 and had to take it. $769 including tax and shipping isn't bad right??
03/10/2011 01:26:11 PM · #17
Originally posted by jbpk11:

Found a pretty sweet deal on a 17-40 and had to take it. $769 including tax and shipping isn't bad right??


That's a very good price if the seller is reputable. Bottom line, if you decide to upgrade later, you're not going to lose that much; perhaps not even as much as it would cost to rent a couple times.
03/10/2011 01:33:25 PM · #18
Originally posted by jbpk11:

Found a pretty sweet deal on a 17-40 and had to take it. $769 including tax and shipping isn't bad right??


I have never paid more than $585 for any of them I've ever bought used. Never bought a new one.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/28/2021 02:34:19 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/28/2021 02:34:19 AM EDT.