17-40 L opinions please

Hi, I am looking for opinions on the 17-40 L lens which I was considering to give me that extreme wide angle which I could have used a few times recently as the 24 was just too tight for some shots I was taking and unfortunately moving further away from the scene would have required the ability to walk on water (not to mention standing the tripod on its surface too!).

The 16-35 L is around twice the price but does it offer a substantial difference in IQ?

Thanks in advance for any advice.
--
Canon 5D MkII
24-105 L
100-400 L
50 f1.4

Yes and no. I have the 17-40L and have rented the 16-35II. I would say if you need the extra stop of light then yes and the corners are siginificantly better on the 16-35II. But I'm not a stickler for sharpness and I'm less interested in landscapes than I used to be. The 17-40L a great lens in its own right. Exceptional colour representation, great sharpness in the centre. Easy to correct for distortion and chromatic abberation.

It excels at street photography (which is mostly what I do) and in daylight. It's also a great lens for landscape on a budget.

The first 5 shots on the link below are shot with the 17-40L (on film so full frame) and its my only lens below 50mm. Highly recommended.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gariepyjeanmichel/show/

Hi. You did not mention which body, but I will assume a full frame. I have a 17-40 and it has been a great lens for many years. Performs best stopped down to about f/8 where it is very sharp on my 5D and 1Ds MK II. Decent for architecture, but you will probably need to remove some distortion...not a problem if you shoot RAW and process in Lightroom or CS5. It's a bit soft in the corners wide open, but not as bad as some would have you believe in my opinion as a full time shooter for 30+ years.

On a crop sensor body I might instead go for the 10-22 mm. I also have one of these and it is great on a camera like the 7D which is what I use mine on. Optically it is quite nice and it is significantly wider than the 17-40 is on a crop sensor body. The 10-22 also seems to be very ll corrected for distortion on the wide end.

The newer version of the 16-35 is supposed to be somewhat better than the fist version, but since I do not own or use this lens, I'll let someone else give you opinions on that lens.

Good luck on your decision.

TomJ

This should help a bit

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_12-24_vs_canon_16-35_vs_canon17-40.htm

As well as this one

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Essentially, stopped down there is no difference between two, wide open 16-35II has an edge in corners.

For stopped down large DOF shooting on full frame it can be a great performer. The 16-35 has real advantages if your primary need is hand held large aperture shooting.

Dan

Stuar7 said:

Hi, I am looking for opinions on the 17-40 L lens which I was considering to give me that extreme wide angle which I could have used a few times recently as the 24 was just too tight for some shots I was taking and unfortunately moving further away from the scene would have required the ability to walk on water (not to mention standing the tripod on its surface too!).

The 16-35 L is around twice the price but does it offer a substantial difference in IQ?

Thanks in advance for any advice.
--
Canon 5D MkII
24-105 L
100-400 L
50 f1.4

Click to expand...

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.

If you read the links that a previous poster sent above and comments by those of us who own the lens, the 16-35L does have very slightly edge sharpness but less than some may have you believe. There is also slightly less vignetting with the 16-35L. But, if you can get by with f4, you will be getting very similar image quality at half the price. I own a 17-40L and shoot full frame and considered and rented a 16-35L II but feel that the upgrade was not enough of an improvement to justify the significant cost. Just crank up the iso by a stop or use a tripod in very low light.

--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com

If you're shooting landscapes or architecture don't forget to consider the 17mm TS-E, it's a beauty, sharp corner to corner, no distortion, Tilt to get the whole scene in focus and Shift to keep all the verticles straight, but manual focus, slow & heavy and must use a tripod.

I can't speak for the 16-35mm f2.8L lens, but I have used the 17-40mm f4.0L lens for a little over 4 years -- first on an EOS 3 film body, and more recently on a 5D (Mark I). What I have observed is that the lens perfoms best (in terms of sharpness) at the widest end. At the long end (at or near 40mm), the corners of the picture can be quite fuzzy, especially at the wider apertures. I found it so objectionable that I bought a Canon 28mm f1.8 USM lens for my landscapes. Having said that, if you know this lens's limitations, it is a very useful and excellent lens. That statement is actually true for pretty much every lens.

Robert
--
My state of confusion has turned into a circle of confusion.

I haven't shot the 16-36L II, but I moved up from the 17-35/2.8L and the 17-40 is terrific. Mine is much sharper all around, and I don't have a problem with 40mm or corners when stopped down beyond 5.6. I have gotten some good flash shots of people over the holidays at 5.6 and even 4.0. I highly recommend it if you don't need 2.8.

Stuar7 said:

Hi, I am looking for opinions on the 17-40 L lens which I was considering to give me that extreme wide angle which I could have used a few times recently as the 24 was just too tight for some shots I was taking and unfortunately moving further away from the scene would have required the ability to walk on water (not to mention standing the tripod on its surface too!).

The 16-35 L is around twice the price but does it offer a substantial difference in IQ?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Click to expand...

Since you were questioning about the 16-35L, here is a recent discussion about that lens and an alternative people talked about, take a look to see what other have to say about that lens, I personally gave up on those Canon WA zoom already.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37326929

Im not too thrilled with the 16-35, my first sample was joke and my second barely OK, I found it very soft in the corners.
The 17-40 and for half the price, is a good compromize.

Thanks alot for the response everyone, you've certainly helped make up my mind in that the 16-35 isn't worth the extra money for my needs which are mainly landscapes & cityscapes which would usually be tripod mounted & shot at around f8 - f11 & I dont think it'd be too often I'd need the 2.8. I had been considering a tilt & shift lens but they seem to be astronomical in price so probably something way off in the future if the quality of my work warrants it.

Regards to all.
--
Canon 5D MkII
24-105 L
100-400 L
50 f1.4