Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 16-35 vs 17-40  (Read 14546 times)
Andrew Teakle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


WWW
« on: September 30, 2006, 04:52:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I am looking at a wide zoom and considering the 16-35 f/2.8L and 17-40 f/4. I really want the best performer. I'm not too concerned about the extra millimetre of gain on the 16-35 nor the f/4 restriction of the 17-40 as I rarely shoot wider than f/8 for landscape work with this type of lens. The cost savings are nice for the 17-40, but optical performance is more important. I read here that many people have chosen the 17-40 and would like to hear their reasons for choosing this lens over the L glass.  

Thanks,
Logged

mr.dude
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2006, 05:12:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am looking at a wide zoom and considering the 16-35 f/2.8L and 17-40 f/4. I really want the best performer. I'm not too concerned about the extra millimetre of gain on the 16-35 nor the f/4 restriction of the 17-40 as I rarely shoot wider than f/8 for landscape work with this type of lens. The cost savings are nice for the 17-40, but optical performance is more important. I read here that many people have chosen the 17-40 and would like to hear their reasons for choosing this lens over the L glass.  

Thanks,
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

this might be one of the reasons why one would choose the 17: [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lens...non-17-40.shtml[/url] and btw they are both L

from seeing a test and from what many people are saying, the nikon 17-35 f2.8 afs seems to trump them both buy you're not likely to see much difference unless shooting full frame.  i also don't know visually how well the nikon deals with flare compared to the 17-40
Logged
Marsupilami
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2006, 05:17:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am looking at a wide zoom and considering the 16-35 f/2.8L and 17-40 f/4. I really want the best performer. I'm not too concerned about the extra millimetre of gain on the 16-35 nor the f/4 restriction of the 17-40 as I rarely shoot wider than f/8 for landscape work with this type of lens. The cost savings are nice for the 17-40, but optical performance is more important. I read here that many people have chosen the 17-40 and would like to hear their reasons for choosing this lens over the L glass.  

Thanks,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello !

For me it is second time, that I have been at Canon Vienna service to check the 17-40 because on the 5 D in the corners even at f 8 it is unacceptable unsharp. To my astonishment they said both (camera and lens) are fine. You should check both lenses directly on your camera. Wide angle is a problem with canon and tolerances are also a common problem (one lens performs well, the next is way off). so it wont be of any use for you if people tell you that the one or the other lens performs well or better on their camera, it might be a total different story with your lens on your camera.

Christian
Logged
Andrew Teakle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2006, 04:11:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Mr Dude and Christian for your replies. That seems to be sound advice to test the lens on my own camera body (5D). I usually buy lenses from B&H because they are considerably cheaper (including shipping) than getting them here in Brisbane, Australia. This time, I may have to spend the extra several hundred dollars but choose the best performer.

I have just installed DxO v4 on my system and have been very impressed with its performance. It does wonders with my 20D and 10-22, as well as on my 5D with a friend's 16-35. Unfortunately I currently own the 17-35 which is not supported. It seems like a good time to upgrade.

Thanks again for your advice.
Logged

SeanFS
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2006, 04:51:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I second marsupilami as I had to take my 16-35mm back and try another for my 1ds2 - it just wasn' t right. I tried a 17- 40 in the meantime but  decided while it did some things well , and handled flare better in particular, that I needed the extra stop in brightness for focussing, I thought the 16-35 seemed a bit crisper in some areas too - perhaps colour wise. I thought Michaels test was very much in line with my own cruder results but after a year I'm very happy with it, but after looking at a friends results from the 17-40 on his 5d I'm sure I would have been hapy with that lens too.




Quote
Thank you Mr Dude and Christian for your replies. That seems to be sound advice to test the lens on my own camera body (5D). I usually buy lenses from B&H because they are considerably cheaper (including shipping) than getting them here in Brisbane, Australia. This time, I may have to spend the extra several hundred dollars but choose the best performer.

I have just installed DxO v4 on my system and have been very impressed with its performance. It does wonders with my 20D and 10-22, as well as on my 5D with a friend's 16-35. Unfortunately I currently own the 17-35 which is not supported. It seems like a good time to upgrade.

Thanks again for your advice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Andrew Teakle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2006, 01:45:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Sean, I've heard of Canon's variablilty in quality control before, but I've obviously been lucky with the lenses I've bought. We have a 10-22, 24-70, 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400 for the 20D and 5D, and all of them look very good when comapring them with friends'.

I think a little in-store comparison between 16-35 and 17-40 (and each individual example of these that they have in stock) might be just the ticket.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad