I have the 17-40 (and 17-35L and 20-35L, one of these two has to go) and saw the 16-35 2.8L (first version) at a very reasonable price. I am absolutely staggered by how bad the 20-35&17-35 are at wider apertures and focal length - getting better when stopping down. The 17-40 is much better. I almost only shoot outside, don't need the extra 1mm and don't "need" the 2.8. But 2.8 is always nice and sometimes GAS kicks in. It seems the 16-35 is worse than the 17-40, as per the-digital-picture. Could anyone advise me? Is the 16-35 worth it IQ wise over the 4?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
EF 16-35 2.8L (original) over 17-40?
- Thread starter RubenJ
- Start date
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,316
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
Canon's wideangle zooms historically never had an excellent reputation for image quality until they released the 16-35mm f/4L IS in mid-2014 and the f/2.8L III a couple of years later. The f/4L (which I have) goes for much the same price as the original f/2.8 and is about the same size and weight but it's got 4 stops of image stabilisation and has a much better reputation.
Last edited:
John Crowe
Veteran Member
I have always been interested in all of these lenses, and at some point will likely own one of them. Your experience is interesting.
It is not possible to effectively compare the 17-40 and 16-35/2.8 L on the digital_picture site, since the closest cameras you can select are the 1DsII and III, which are not comparable.
However, all the others can be compared using the same camera.
The 17-40 is very near the 16-35/2.8 II, so to me that eliminates the original f2.8 from the discussion. Combined with the fact that prices completely overlap between the original and the II.
Prices of these two lenses also overlap with the f4 L IS, which looks like a very good lens, sitting between the f2.8 L II and f2.8 L III.
To me, since you already have the 17-40 L, it is between the 16-35/4 L IS and f2.8 L III. I would wait 'til you can find a bargain price for one of these, or justify the price of an excellent one. Having already worked your way through three ultrawide zooms, I'd holdout for one final purchase for quite awhile. Selling all three makes a very good dent in the price of a replacement.
My heart still goes with the III, but prices are falling, so I will keep waiting.
It is not possible to effectively compare the 17-40 and 16-35/2.8 L on the digital_picture site, since the closest cameras you can select are the 1DsII and III, which are not comparable.
However, all the others can be compared using the same camera.
The 17-40 is very near the 16-35/2.8 II, so to me that eliminates the original f2.8 from the discussion. Combined with the fact that prices completely overlap between the original and the II.
Prices of these two lenses also overlap with the f4 L IS, which looks like a very good lens, sitting between the f2.8 L II and f2.8 L III.
To me, since you already have the 17-40 L, it is between the 16-35/4 L IS and f2.8 L III. I would wait 'til you can find a bargain price for one of these, or justify the price of an excellent one. Having already worked your way through three ultrawide zooms, I'd holdout for one final purchase for quite awhile. Selling all three makes a very good dent in the price of a replacement.
My heart still goes with the III, but prices are falling, so I will keep waiting.
Thanks. I'll stick with the 17-40 then. I wanted an early wideangle L lens to go with my rare 50-200L on my original 5D and 1Ds. I went for a 20-35L, but it was a dog really. I quickly got a 17-35L since it was old also - and paid too much. I sold the 20-35 and the same day bought a better version of it back. If its better (receiving it tomorrow), I could let go of the 17-35 and that's the point I was interested in the 16-35. Could it replace the 17-35 and 17-40? Apparently not so. With the 16 I would be able to crop a bit more ugly corners though... The 17-35 though is laughable; only 1/3 to 1/2 of the frame is sharp at wider apertures. Really bad, funnily so.
John Crowe
Veteran Member
Any idea how the 50-200 L compares to the 70-200/4 L? I have the latter, and have always wandered what the slightly wider 50-200 was like.
I will do a comparison later;I have both. The 70 hands down is sharper from f4. But, and here's the catch: I could use the 50 as a walkaround lens. It is so nice to have a tele lens which starts at 50! Its incredible. I don't understand why there are not many more 50-xx lenses.
John Crowe
Veteran Member
Wide open I find the f4 L sharpest at 135mm, and softest at 200mm. I always try to back off to even 180mm.
gipper51
Veteran Member
The early EF UWA wide zooms are fairly lackluster. If you want a 'classic' wide zoom from the early days you'll have to accept the optical compromises, unfortunately. The 16-35 f2.8 II is a decent landscape lens when stopped down, and IMHO slightly gets a bad rap.
The 16-35 f4L IS was the first UWA from Canon that finally seemed to 'nail it' with no obvious weaknesses. It's sharp at all apertures across the range, low vignetting, low CA, low distortions (for an UWA), fast focusing and IS is the cherry on top. QC is quite good as there are very few reported bad copies for this lens. Second hand it's a bargain these days.
If you don't require f2.8 in your UWA zoom, the f4 IS is the one to get. The image quality is still excellent even on high MP bodies, and the newer mirrorless UWA lenses to have arrived since only exceed its optical performance by small fractions. In several parameters (mainly distortion and vignetting), newer lenses have actually regressed from the EF lens. It's possibly the best bang-for-buck UWA zoom out there from any maker.
matteokeary
Active member
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 42
This is the sort of advice I followed when I invested in a UWA zoom, buying the 16-35mm F4L IS. Love the images I make with it; never regretted or wanted "better".
My follow-on question: If you wanted to go wider, what would you choose? 11-24mm F4L seems the obvious choice, if pricey? Or save some $ with the 12-24 F4 Sigma Art? Any preference for the 8-15mm F4L fisheye? A fixed focal length, say 14mm F2.8L? I know that some like one of the third-party 14mm options for astrophotography (Samyang?)...
Just musing, mostly... and liking what I can do with the width I have, and considering how I might use more.
Best,
Teo
The 16-35 2.8 1 I could have at $240 while I bought the 17-40 at $220 and the 17-35 2.8 at $300. That is about the budget, and the 16-35 4 is worth a bit more. I think of leaving the 17-35 as at 2.8 it's... Worth the effort to close it down to f4. And for when I really want 2.8, the 20-35 is unbelievably sharp wide open!
2ndact scene1
Senior Member
Hating the 17-40 for its corners is bs, when shooting landscapes one closes the aperture and no one looks in those extreme corners anyway. Only pixel peepers, of which I am not one. If you think your landscape shot is perfect, but completely ruined by a bit soft edges it is you really.
That seems to assume that the only purpose of a WA lens is well lit daytime landscapes. What about group portraits, street or architectural (indoor & outdoor) shooting, museums etc ?
Those are all situations where a WA lens (that is sharp to the edges close to wide open) could be very handy.
I never saw the point of a 17-40 f4 lens that had to be stopped down to f8 or f11 to get it reasonably sharp across the frame - f8 or f11 isn't much use indoors like a museum where flash photography isn't allowed, or a street architectural scene where light (and space to back up) is limited.
This lens was OK (just OK, not a typical L series lens IMO) on APS-C, but quite lacking for many typical WA use cases on FF.
But each to their own.
2ndact scene1
Senior Member
My thought is that while your facts are probably right, are pristine corners relevant to portraits or group shots? If your subject is centered, I think the corners are not critical and you may even want to darken them deliberately.
And museums (and most indoor venues of any age, particularly churches) are dark. You either need to shoot on a tripod, or have very good IBIS in order to get a usable shutter speed, even at ISO 6400. And stopping down to f11 would be a major hurdle because it will drive ISO even higher. So a tripod is the only option and that will be what I will use for indoor architecture (which I do as a volunteer for a non profit with permission from the property owner). But in my experience, it is very rare for corners of rooms in such properties to not be in shadow. If the corners of your wide angle image extend out to the corners of the room, you probably don’t need pristine corners at the wide end of a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.
From what I have seen on a couple of copies of 17-40L, it is not just the corners that displayed softness on a FF - generally both left and right edges were noticeably softer than centre, and corners were even worse.
I tried it myself back in 2013 on a 600D (18Mp APS-C) and even on that it showed soft corners and slightly on the edges. I chose to spend my money elsewhere.
I just dug back through some old photos and found these from 2013. Admittedly not exactly a studio/lab test, but perhaps more indicative of what might be possible in a real world situation (shooting handheld indoors with ambient lighting). And yes, I am aware that the shutter speeds are slow, and that 17-40L lacks IS (and the settings differ slightly, but I was trying to move fairly quickly in a shop environment to minimise capitalising on the salesperson's time) - but look past that to compare the centres of the shots (perhaps the green & white "Studio" sign) with the edges (perhaps the green & white "Cameras" sign on each. All 4 photos were converted today from RAW to JPEG using DxO PL8 without any changes made in software.
It seems fairly clear to me that 17-40L has softer edges than even the old EF-S 10-22 (relative to the centre sharpness), never mind EF-S 17-55 or Sigma 17-50. The Sigma, for it's faults, is sharper across the frame at f2.8 (and slower shutter) than 17-40L is at f4.
Obviously the edge softness of 17-40L would have been noticeably worse on a FF. To me, the softness and lack of IS on 17-40L does not compensate for it's lower price - it just isn't a great lens. My old EF-M 11-22mm on M5 was a significantly better UWA in every respect, including price.
I tried it myself back in 2013 on a 600D (18Mp APS-C) and even on that it showed soft corners and slightly on the edges. I chose to spend my money elsewhere.
I just dug back through some old photos and found these from 2013. Admittedly not exactly a studio/lab test, but perhaps more indicative of what might be possible in a real world situation (shooting handheld indoors with ambient lighting). And yes, I am aware that the shutter speeds are slow, and that 17-40L lacks IS (and the settings differ slightly, but I was trying to move fairly quickly in a shop environment to minimise capitalising on the salesperson's time) - but look past that to compare the centres of the shots (perhaps the green & white "Studio" sign) with the edges (perhaps the green & white "Cameras" sign on each. All 4 photos were converted today from RAW to JPEG using DxO PL8 without any changes made in software.
It seems fairly clear to me that 17-40L has softer edges than even the old EF-S 10-22 (relative to the centre sharpness), never mind EF-S 17-55 or Sigma 17-50. The Sigma, for it's faults, is sharper across the frame at f2.8 (and slower shutter) than 17-40L is at f4.
Obviously the edge softness of 17-40L would have been noticeably worse on a FF. To me, the softness and lack of IS on 17-40L does not compensate for it's lower price - it just isn't a great lens. My old EF-M 11-22mm on M5 was a significantly better UWA in every respect, including price.
Last edited:
That 17-40 shot is blurred because of shake - nothing is sharp, and that green sign is in dead center which should be sharp nontheless. The 17-55 shot is out of focus, as it seems.From what I have seen on a couple of copies of 17-40L, it is not just the corners that displayed softness on a FF - generally both left and right edges were noticeably softer than centre, and corners were even worse.
I tried it myself back in 2013 on a 600D (18Mp APS-C) and even on that it showed soft corners and slightly on the edges. I chose to spend my money elsewhere.
I just dug back through some old photos and found these from 2013. Admittedly not exactly a studio/lab test, but perhaps more indicative of what might be possible in a real world situation (shooting handheld indoors with ambient lighting). And yes, I am aware that the shutter speeds are slow, and that 17-40L lacks IS (and the settings differ slightly, but I was trying to move fairly quickly in a shop environment to minimise capitalising on the salesperson's time) - but look past that to compare the centres of the shots (perhaps the green & white "Studio" sign) with the edges (perhaps the green & white "Cameras" sign on each. All 4 photos were converted today from RAW to JPEG using DxO PL8 without any changes made in software.
It seems fairly clear to me that 17-40L has softer edges than even the old EF-S 10-22 (relative to the centre sharpness), never mind EF-S 17-55 or Sigma 17-50. The Sigma, for it's faults, is sharper across the frame at f2.8 (and slower shutter) than 17-40L is at f4.
Obviously the edge softness of 17-40L would have been noticeably worse on a FF. To me, the softness and lack of IS on 17-40L does not compensate for it's lower price - it just isn't a great lens. My old EF-M 11-22mm on M5 was a significantly better UWA in every respect, including price.
--
Average amateur, no pixel peeper
As mentioned, look past the overall IQ (of any of the lenses) and compare what the centre looks like with what the edges look like. I am well aware that the photos are not optimal due to the conditions in the shop, and the fairly basic Rebel camera I was using - the purpose was not to demonstrate overall IQ, but rather to show how the softness (rather than sharpness) varies across the frame. The 17-40L has edges (not just the corners) that were noticeably softer than the centre.
My observations have been borne out by many others, both reviewers and members in these forums. Unfortunately this lens probably has the reputation of being Canon's worst L series lens in recent decades for a reason - hence the lower price point.
Ironically, I ended up buying the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and sold it 2 years later after being regularly disappointed with it's ability to reliably AF accurately (on both 600D and later 70D). Even with repeated attempts to do AFMA (on 70D) I just couldn't get it to AF reliably. Much of the time it was bang-on and really sharp, and sometimes it would just miss by a bit for no apparent reason, usually worse when wide open close to 17mm. I replaced it with a EF 24-105L and never looked back.
F4
F5.6
Took some short for you. At F4 and 17mm the edges are indeed unsharp. (which might very well be field curvature). I think it is perfectly useable if light is so tight and you need F4. Closed to F5.6 it is already much, much better. Perhaps 2,5% of the frame here is softer. People hate this lens too much.
--
Average amateur, no pixel peeper
Thanks for the helpful example. By my reckoning the softness is evident (at f4) from somewhere between 20-25% of the frame (from the centre-most "orange" tree outwards), obviously split between the two sides. This is exactly why I mentioned the examples I did (eg. a large group shot, building/architecture etc) where you may well be trying to fit a wide subject into the entire frame, not ¾ of the frame.
That is a lot more than "a little corner softness" as some claim. Maybe it is due to field curvature, but the fact remains that many other UWA lenses (eg. EF 16-35L f4, EF-M 11-22, RF15-30, and several others) don't display the same degree of edge softness.
IMO 17-40L is possibly a decent choice for someone using a APS-C camera on a tight budget, but there are several better choices out there
That is a lot more than "a little corner softness" as some claim. Maybe it is due to field curvature, but the fact remains that many other UWA lenses (eg. EF 16-35L f4, EF-M 11-22, RF15-30, and several others) don't display the same degree of edge softness.
IMO 17-40L is possibly a decent choice for someone using a APS-C camera on a tight budget, but there are several better choices out there
Last edited:
Have you considered stopping it down? It's already much better at 5,6 and continues to do so when stopping down further.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum