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

gtags wrote:

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

I'm glad you asked the question, I'm getting great information from the replies!

Owning both - and the 17-40mm has been a good friend for about a decade - the 26-35mm f4 is vastly superior in almost every respect. I also have the 16-36 F2.8 version but if you don't need f2.8 to slow scene action then the 4 stops of IS on the f4 is all you will need

pekr wrote:

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

If its lower light and action it wont be enough.

I am in the process of buying either,  in your case I think no question you need  the IS as the 17-40 does not have IS.   I will buy the more expensive one as its got better ratings after reading lots of reviews, its also a newer lens.  the 16-35 f4 IS is your best choice in my view, I also have a 5d 4

KelownaGuy wrote:

I am in the process of buying either, in your case I think no question you need the IS as the 17-40 does not have IS. I will buy the more expensive one as its got better ratings after reading lots of reviews, its also a newer lens. the 16-35 f4 IS is your best choice in my view, I also have a 5d 4

I think that the OP has probably made a choice in the last 2 years :-). He/she hasn't been here for over 12 months, so unlikely to respond.

Colin