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

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!

Between those two, get the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM.

That's all you need to know.

+1

That seems to be the consensus amongst my local colleagues as well! Cheers for the quick reply

charlieY wrote:

+1

+2

enfi wrote:

charlieY wrote:

+1

+2

+3. Yep. A bit more information:

The 16-35 f/4L IS design is quite a bit more advanced when compared to the 17-40. Center sharpness will be similar, but the edges, especially when shooting wide open, will be far, far superior. It is more resistant to flare, the IS is solid and it has much better chromatic aberration correction.

The 16-35 f/4L IS has been a winner from day one and is one of the very few lenses almost everyone loves, even in the snarky pages of DPreview!

you do realize this forum has search function?

because I'm sure you haven't had a shadow of the doubt that this question was asked before. or did you?

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!

16-35mm F4 L IS is the one lens I have in my collection that consistently performs faultlessly.

If I needed to build a kit again from scratch, it's the first lens I'd purchase.

akustykmagmanetpl wrote:

you do realize this forum has search function?

because I'm sure you haven't had a shadow of the doubt that this question was asked before. or did you?

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!

Who cares?

You could have ignored the topic. :-\

FtMyersTraveler wrote:

akustykmagmanetpl wrote:

you do realize this forum has search function?

because I'm sure you haven't had a shadow of the doubt that this question was asked before. or did you?

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!

Who cares?

You could have ignored the topic. :-\

Agreed. Im new here still learning the ropes. He was very rude haha

The 17-40mm f4 is a great focal length. It's super light for hiking. It's old which means you can get it used for very reasonable prices. It has great color and contrast even wide open.

But it's pretty soft in the corners and the one I have doesn't have the greatest sharpness in the center either. Stopping down doesn't make much difference.

I don't make huge prints or crop much so I still use mine all the time. There's no reason for me to get the much more expensive 16-35mm f4.

No text.

I went from the 17-40 to the 16-35 f2.8LII to the 16-35 F4, that one is far superior to the other two, particularly in the area of corner sharpness. Plus IS.

You won't be disappointed.

I have both getbthe 16-35 f/4 IS

akustykmagmanetpl wrote:

you do realize this forum has search function?

because I'm sure you haven't had a shadow of the doubt that this question was asked before. or did you?

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!

Get Off My Lawn!!!!!!!

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.

We are waiting for the 6D2 to enter a FF land. Recently we've got 70-200/f2.8 II IS and Sigma Art 35 1.4 as compatible lens, whereas nice Tamron 17-50/f2.8 remains for our APS-C purposes (nicely sharp one).

Thanks to this thread, we don't need to consider 17-40, the lens I remember from the past.

One of questions we have to answer ourselves is - do we prefer wider lens (weddings preparations, indoors), or a longer reach and companion to our 70-200, hence e.g. 24-70/f2.8?

On the other hand - both 16-35/f.2.8 III and 24-70/f2.8 II are almost twice the price and while faster, don't have IS (not sure it is needed on 2.8 though).

So after all, we might go 16-35/f4 IS way, as a bit of an extra reach in comparison to 24mm might be handy indoors?

Thanks,

Petr