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

Hello Psychoticpanda,

Got the 17-40 and the EFS 60 macro and they cover a lot of subjects in which I am interested.

The 60 is pretty good as a moderate telephoto lens, while giving macro capability, although maybe  I ought to splash out on the 100! But at 72, how much weight am I willing to carry?

Consulted Photozone.de before I decided which lenses to use with the 7d.

No experience with other Canon lenses (Nikon convert) but am a very happy amateur shooter. You may find the 17-40 perfectly adequate as long as you are happy with APC format.

The 7d quickly persuaded me I had no need of FF! Alistair

First of all, I have to say these two lenses are mainly for FF bodies. You're better to consider EF-S alternative for your 60D - 17-55/2.8 IS, 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS, Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS (that I bought for my 60D), 10-22 UWA.

Now if you're still interest between these two L lenses and might consider to move to FF soon, you choose between these two based on you priority - do you need f2.8, do you care (slight) better IQ at edges/corners, weight/size, price.

I chose 17-40L.  Its IQ is quite good especially you stop down. Canon is due to upgrade both lenses especially 17-40L as Nikon did. Nikon relative new 16-35/4.0 VR IQ beats both Canon lenses at f/4 and it has VR.  Also this 17-40L is pretty sharp on my 60D that actually slightly edge out Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS at f/4.0.  But I used Sigma as it has F2.8, it has'OS' and longer range.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/albums/17-40l



17-40L on 5D2



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 Better image quality then my standard outdated lenses.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.

I would strongly suggest getting the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. I bought this lens for my 7D and it was my go-to workhorse lens for most of the time that I owned the 7D. If you plan to sell your 60D and head towards the full frame world or stay in crop land, I would get the 17-55 regardless. In the case that you do decide to venture into full frame territory, the 17-55 is an easy lens to sell.

A second suggestion would be the Canon EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6. IMO it is a close second to the 17-55 closely matching it in sharpness and IQ. The major difference is its low light capability and focal length.

The 17-40 and 16-35 are fine lenses, however they wouldn't add much value over the 17-55 or 15-85 lenses other than build quality and a red ring. If you truly want a 'wide' lens, I would advise that you consider the Canon EF-S 10-22, Sigma 8-16, Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 11-16. All are excellent lenses with several satisfied crop users.

gipper51 wrote:

psychoticpanda wrote:

So do you think I should get the EF-S compared to a EF lens? I mean I know lenses usually last a while but camera bodies only a few years before they are outdated. I just don't want to have to invest in another few lenses that won't fit a FF camera in the future.

Now that I am thinking about it, I may just pick an EF-S lens and save some money, then worry about the EF exclusive lenses when I get there. Any suggestions comparable to the lens I mentioned? Or even any general suggestions to use as an everyday lens for walking around the city...? Thanks everyone!

Yes, I would go with an EF-S lens. The Canon 17-55 IS is probably the absolute best one, but also the most expensive. There are several very good alternatives from Sigma and Tamron for significantly less money.

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/sigma-17-50mm-f2-8-vs-canon-17-55mm-f2-8-and-tamron-17-50mm-f2-8/

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs17-55/

I personally picked up Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS as a walk-around lens for my 60D after carefully read several reviews (such as two above) and after read many owners' experiences. I used it to cover my entire trip of Disney parks last year together with 70-200L/4.0 IS with pretty good result for example. I appreciate constant f/2.8 in low light that I shoot virtually exclusively hand-held in evening.

http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/f975306243

You choose EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS - It's Canon first and keep value better down to the road. But it's overpriced on my opinion. It's slightly better than Sigma version in edges/corners at f/2.8 (but I don't bother by dim corners/edges in low light when I only need to shoot F2.8 in my usage). It has FTM (full-time manual overrun that is not really a big deal on my experience with Sigma copy). It has extra 5mm at tele-side.

You choose Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS - $400-450 cheaper with lens' hood included, a huge deal to me. It has very similar IQ as Canon copy if not slightly sharper in center at f/2.8 and beyond f/8. Arguably it also has better build.

You choose EF-S 15-85 because it's 15mm at wide side (that equivalent to 24mm on FF that is noticeable wider than 17mm) and 85mm at tele-side but it's slow in low light. It has latest 4-stop 'IS'.

To OP: you choose based on your priority - range vs low light with other factors - price and weight and if you will upgrade to FF in near future.

Reading the reviews of these lenses on this site might help with your decision:

www.photozone.de

-- hide signature --

My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits

gdanmitchell wrote:

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.

I've used 24-70 and 24-105 on my 60D before and I noticed that images were softer than ones from kit lens 18-55mm.

I also tested 17-40 lens against 18-55mm kit lens on another APS-C body and had similar result.

I believe that these older full frame lenses are not up to resolution of modern cropped sensors.

The newer 24-70II (and maybe 24-70F4) may work better with cropped sensor cameras and higher resolution full-frame sensor camera which I expect Canon to offer one next year.

ak1999 wrote:

gdanmitchell wrote:

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.

I've used 24-70 and 24-105 on my 60D before and I noticed that images were softer than ones from kit lens 18-55mm.

I also tested 17-40 lens against 18-55mm kit lens on another APS-C body and had similar result.

I believe that these older full frame lenses are not up to resolution of modern cropped sensors.

The newer 24-70II (and maybe 24-70F4) may work better with cropped sensor cameras and higher resolution full-frame sensor camera which I expect Canon to offer one next year.

Most people suggest you use EF-S lenses on APS-C cameras, but I've been using 17-40 on a crop body (60D) and honestly it's been a revelation for me.  Images are sharper and have more pop than 18-135 IMO.  I've got a bunch of them at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68255851@N05/tags/1740/

I'm sure 15-85 and 17-55 are both good lenses although I haven't used them.

This guy likes the 17-40 too. He did a direct comparison versus 15-85.

http://www.parkcamper.com/17-40-versus-15-85IS/Canon-15-85-versus-17-40L-comparison.htm

My comments are the minority so take them with a grain of salt.

Dave

i have a 17-40mm f4 and have been enjoying the excellent photos it produce's for a long time. contrary to common nonsense i hear about using this lens on a FF camera, i have used mine on a 40D and have gotten much better result instead of my 5D! from the test results i have read, 17-40 produce's the same IQ as the more expensive 16-35mm f2.8 with exception of one click faster aperture and a lot less in price!

cheerz.

rebel99 wrote:

i have a 17-40mm f4 and have been enjoying the excellent photos it produce's for a long time. contrary to common nonsense i hear about using this lens on a FF camera, i have used mine on a 40D and have gotten much better result instead of my 5D! from the test results i have read, 17-40 produce's the same IQ as the more expensive 16-35mm f2.8 with exception of one click faster aperture and a lot less in price!

cheerz.

Although I don't recommend 17-40L on APS-C as there are better alternatives in overal performance, my copy of 17-40L is very sharp on my 60D and actually slightly edges out Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS and 24-105L when I tested indoor on a dollar bill or outdoor among three lenses on 60D. But I picked up Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS as it has F2.8 that still sharper at least in center, 'OS' (Sigma version of 'IS') and longer range but also a bit heavier than 17-40L.

Some test shots from 60D with 17-40L before I got Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS.





I recommend considering the Canon 24-105L. My copy has looked sharper, with better contrast, than the 17-40 I just got. The range is excellent. If you want a wider lens, then the 17-40L will give you that. Both of these lenses are under your price limit. I see a bigger improvement over the 18-55IS with the 24-105L than with the 17-40L.

The only reason for getting the 16-35 would be for the F2.8.

If you will never go full-frame, then you might consider the 17-55IS. It is a fine lens and has F2.8. I use a 60D, but plan to get a full-frame camera soon. If I didn't want to go this route, I'd probably be interested in the 17-55IS. I like the range of the 15-85IS, but not the F5.6 at the long end.

I should point out that you see more for your money when you get a good fast prime. I have the 35F2, and it gets used a lot. If I didn't have the older version (now $290), I'd be in the market for the new 35F2 IS.