lens advice: 16-35L vs. 17-40L

[Steve_Goldenberg]

Hey everyone! I'm looking to buy a wide-angle zoom and I've read like 19 different reviews of these 2 lenses and I'm stuck. I'd love your advice: from your work in the field is the 17-40 really sharper at wide angle than the 16-35? How often is the extra stop on the 16-35 essential? Basically, the price difference is so much I'd love to know if it's worth the extra...

-Steve

[Joe_Kurkjian]

I can't recall reading even a single complaint (on any forum) regarding either the quality and/or performance of the 17-40L at any focal length setting. My final decision was based on a bit of information overload in conjunction with my application requirements; in the end I went with the 17-40. Please note that very low ambient illumination was not a factor in my overall decision making process. My objective was to maximize performance, and keep weight and the number of lenses to a minimum. The 10D system as of this writing includes the 17-40, 50-f/1.4, 28-135, and 100-400. The first three lenses go in one bag, and the latter two lenses go to the zoo (the 28-135 works well in both bags).

[WEMALVEY]

Have you seen this one??

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/16-35.shtml

It is a direct comparison of the two.

FWIW, I own the 16-35 and am very happy with it on a 10D.

[JohnJJ]

I'm a wedding photographer. I carry the 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, and the 70-200 f2.8L (with a 1.4 extender), with my two 10Ds. I got the 16-35 when it first came out (the 17-40 wasn't out) because I needed a wider angle with the 1.6 crop factor of the 10D. If the 17-40 f4L was out at that time, I would have gladly purchased it and saved some 100s of dollars. I don't think there is any significant quality difference, just a loss of 1 stop. And I don't use the 16-35 at f2.8. :-(
John

[JohnJJ]

Bill, That's a comparison between the 16-35 f2.8L and the 17-35 f2.8L. I think Steve is comparing 16-35 f2.8L and the 17-40 f4L.

[Ruffo_Michelotti]

Try this one:
16-35 vs 17-40

I have the 17-40 and use it mostly at the wider end for scenics with a tripod. I think both are very similar and very nice. It's a matter of weighing the speed vs cost for your own purposes.

[Gabriel_Aguirre]

I also had that problem in trying to decide which lens to buy, so I did a lot of research on opinions, comparisons, etc. Overall, the 16-35 has a slight edge when used with film (namely, chrome), for it seems to offer some better saturation and contrast, but with a digital camera such as the 10D, there's virtually no difference there since you'll be doing the white balance and contrast settings yourself.

Although I love the DOF that a 2.8 aperture would give, at the wide end on a 10D the main difference would be that it's a full stop faster, and at the wide end, really, DOF isn't that dramatic unless it's a close-up. The 17-40L wide open (f/4) at the shortest focal length seems to be about as sharp as the 16-35 at the same aperture at the same focal length, which is a major plus for the 17-40.

In the end, since both lenses are so good, I decided the 17-40L because it was lighter, shorter and cheaper. If I had the money to burn, I would probably add a 16-35 and use the 17-40L on film, and the 16-35 for the 10D, but that's just not practical for me for I carry either digital or film, seldom both at the same time.

Either lens won't disappoint you; between these two, IMO, it's a matter of money and shooting style.