17-40mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/2.8L

psychoticpanda wrote:

Okay so I need some serious help, I am new to the forums so I very much apologize for a possible repeated question but I feel it is a on person to person basis for a lens decision so here goes nothing...

---

I have a newly bought Canon 60D and I'm looking for a new everyday lens for both photos and video. I want to get a higher quality lens compared to what I have now (50mm, 18-55mm, 70-300mm) but they aren't doing it for me.

What I am looking for out of a new lens:

1. Better image quality then my standard outdated lenses.
2. Wide angle for both portrait and landscapes (and portrait videos)
3. A lens which will make me look the next level of professionalism because these small lenses aren't cutting it. (Not so important, haha)

I may be asking for too much in one lens, but can you please tell me what the difference is in these two lenses that makes one double the price? I am no pro at photography but I am not a beginner either. Although I do not know much about lenses, I know more about setting up a shot then anything else. Please help!

---

If you can suggest any other lens which is good for everyday use that would be great too. I can afford the 17-40mm right now but I will have to wait a little longer for the 16-35mm lens. Any other info you need to know just ask because I feel like I am forgetting a few things since it's so late right now...:-P

Neither the 17-40 nor the 16-35 are your best choices on your 60D cropped-sensor camera.

The 17-40 is a fine lens for small-aperture, tripod-based photography of subjects such as landscape, architecture, or similar on full frame cameras, where its stopped down performance can be very good. I own the lens and like it a lot for these purposes. However, I once used it on cropped sensor cameras and was not so impressed. Its center sharpness was quite good, but at f/4 there were corner softness issues, and they even affected some f/8 photographs. The problem here is that due to the different way that diffraction blur shows up in cropped sensor images, you don't want to stop down beyond this much, at it is at f/11 and f/16 where this lens truly comes into its own.

The 16-35 f/2.8 L is also a fine lens that is best used for hand held, low light, ultra-wide full frame shooting. it could be fine on a cropped sensor body, but it is not the best option.

The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a better choice that either of these for your camera. It provides the f/2.8 maximum aperture of the 16-35. Its image quality is at least equal to and in many ways better than that of the L lenses on your camera. It has a larger focal length range. It includes the useful IS feature.

Price alone is not always the best indication of what lens is "best" for your purposes. In this case, the best lens for you is almost certainly the one in the middle of the price spread.