17-40, 16-35 2.8II or 16-35 IS 4 on 1d IV

Hello,

I just bought a used EOS 1d IV.

I already have a 17-40 4L from my 1d II. The new cam has 16 MP instead of 8 MP so I wonder if I should buy a "better", sharper lens.

The 1D IV has a crop of 1.3.

The 17-40 is known for it´s lack of sharpness on the edges on full frame cameras. On my old 1D II I noticed also a lack of sharpness, but more or less over the full frame compared to my 70-200 2.8 II IS.

The 16-35 f4 shows in tests quite a good sharpness overall, also on the edges on a full frame cam.

The 16-35 2.8 II is again less sharp on the edges on an full frame. But on the 1d IV with crop?

I did not find any tests on a 1.3 crop camera of this lens.

From my point of view a 2.8 on a wide lens should be preferred over f4 with IS. But the sharpness is more important for me.

Is it worth to buy a 16-35 f4IS or a 16-35 2.8II in exchange of the 17-40?

Thanks

Tim

EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM does have IS, good for handheld shots where tripod/monopod not allowed.

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II is better for low light situation, 17-40 f/L is not bad if for landscape if stop down a bit.

Why don't you take a few test shots with tripod and show us? May be the result will surprised yourself.

*I am assuming you shoot mostly landscape.

Enjoy 1D IV !

It would be nice if Canon made a 16-35 f/2.8L IS that was as sharp as the 16-35 f/4L IS, but they don't

I've used the 1.3 crop 1D series bodies with the 16-35 f/2.8 and it works O.K., but the f/4L version is just so darn good that I've relegated my old f/2.8 lens to backup duty in a drawer.

In all honesty, I really haven't missed the f/2.8 speed, even when shooting in truly awful light. The IS on the new 16-35 f/4L IS is so solid that I handhold in and even shoot "Hail Marys" under low light. Boring example from last week:

powerear wrote:

From my point of view a 2.8 on a wide lens should be preferred over f4 with IS. But the sharpness is more important for me.

why? are you shooting a lot in low light?

16-35L f2.8 II = soft in corners and softish wide open.  I have years of experiences with both lenses as well as the 17-40L.  I choose BOP :^).

Have owned all 3. but on full frame.

1.  try your 17-40L on the 1d4 and see if you are happy with it.  if you are, then nothing else matters

2. I very much doubt that you will see much of difference between these lenses on 1d4, except the 16-35 f4 has better flare resistance.  the 16-35II is an excellent lens, except in the side of the frame and corner, all of which will lie outside of your sensor.  same with 17-40

3,  If I absolutely knew that I will never switch to a full frame, I would chose the f2.8 over the f4 lens, as I find the extra stop of light more useful that the IS (as long as prices are similar).  24-70 2.8II goes for average of 1800, while the f4IS variant goes for 800. yet most prefer the 2.8II. but thats my personal peference

4. Finally, for being future proof reason, you cant go wrong with f4L IS, if you fee compelled to upgrade.  it really shines in terms of corner to corner sharpness on a full frame sensor.

No brainer!  16-35 f4. best Canon wide ever!