Canon 17-40 f4 L vs Canon 16-35 f4 L IS

gtags wrote:

Hi guys!

After buying a 5D Mark IV body, I only have enough cash to buy one lens. I shoot mainly landscapes so wide angle is my priority. Ive been looking at both of these lenses and there is quite a price disparity! Can anyone give any insight as to which one is sharper and which one you would recommend.

Much appreciated!

Three years ago at this time I needed to buy a what Canon refers to as an Ultra Wide Zoom for my 5D Mark III. At that time the options were the 16-35 f/2.8 L Mark II and the 17-40 f/4 L. Since most of my needs for this range were stopped down, I decided to go for the smaller, lighter, f/4 L. So I used it with great results...........THEN.........the 16-35 f/4 L IS was announced. Improved optics of both the two lenses above and the inclusion of IS......Time to start saving up.

A year later, A trip to Rome was the excuse I needed to finally invest in the new lens. Not only for its improved corner sharpness, which is noticeable, but more importantly being able to shoot Hand Held at slower shutter speeds with IS. No tripods allowed...... Capturing Razor Sharp images at the slower shutter speeds certainly was well worth the investment. I still have the 17-40 f/4 L as it certainly is a reliable back up for work needs and the resale value is not enough. Like an Insurance Policy I guess...

If I had the three lenses, the 16-35 f/2.8 L Mark II, the 17-40 f/4 L, the 16-35 f/4 L IS and the recently introduced 16-35 f/2.8 and I had to buy one, no doubt the 16-35 f/4 L IS again and again.

Don't put cheap gas in that highly tuned sports car you just bought.