Canon 17-40mm f4L Vs 16-35mm f2.8L

amytomjerry · 25-03-2011 11:29PM #1

Hifolk, thanks for all advice on a previous topic. I have another query for any users of the above lenses. I have been saving like mad to purchase a new wide angle for my 5DMkii( i looovvvve this camera) Anyway, I am curious as to honest opinion on the above topic. Even though the wide angle will be used mostly for outdoors, I would like to use it indooors also. I really want to make the right choice as this will be a lens for life. If you are a user of any of the above, please give me your opinion! Thanks all:)

b318isp · 25-03-2011 11:38PM

I love my 17-40. It is a great lens - especially for city walk arounds. I never have heard anyone complaining about buying this lens. I'd possibly go so far that it is the best value L lens (along with the 70-200f4).

The 16-35mm is a fabulously well renowned lens too and a good deal dearer. To me, if you need the faster lens then go that way, especially if you need it for indoor use or shallow DoF. If you can afford it, I don't think you would regret buying this.

Effects · 26-03-2011 03:52AM

I'd go for the 16-35. I have a friend that has the 17-40 and he borrows my 16-35 a bit. I much prefer it over the 17-40 myself. I wouldn't be happy with f4.

challengemaster · 26-03-2011 03:56AM

I'll throw a spanner into the works here and say 24-70 f/2.8L

Works beautifully with full frame and since I've got mine I've never found fault with it. Plenty wide, despite not being dedicated wide-angle.... Also much more versatile...

See if you can try one out...you'll see what I mean

Borderfox · 26-03-2011 12:55PM

17-40L or 24-70L, both use 77mm filters where the 16-35L uses the more expensive (most time) 82mm thread. I have shot plenty of weddings using the 17-40L indoors/outdoors.

Paulw · 26-03-2011 02:27PM

I love my 16-35mm lens. I also have the 24-70mm too, and they compliment each other well.

The 16-35mm is nice and wide, and a good clear, sharp lens.

pullandbang · 26-03-2011 11:36PM

Just sold my 17 40 f4 after buying the 16 - 35 f2.8.
I loved the 17 40 on my 5D and am looking forward now to getting stuck into the 16 - 35. 17 - 40 is a beautiful lens..... but if you need the extra light with the f2.8 then go for that one.

waldo · 27-03-2011 11:12AM

I have the 16-35 on a 5d MII and I use it as my standard lens. The build quality is excellent, and the f2.8 aperture gives great low light results. Very happy with it.

Likle all Canon lenses, I suppose there is a reason it's twice the price!

the_monkey · 27-03-2011 03:40PM

I was in the same boat a few years back, I eventually went with the 17-40 as i couldn't justify spending almost double to get the 16-35.

It's a great lens and very wide on the 5dii -
Plus it's handy with the 77mm filter size.
then I used the savings to get a 15mm f2.8 fisheye

!!!

But as I use it for outdoor shooting and narrow apertures I don't miss
the f2.8 - so if you really need this then go for the 16-35.

But if like me you are using it outdoors mainly I'd go for the 17-40.

Use the money you save for another lens!

good luck.

amytomjerry · 28-03-2011 02:13PM

Thanks everyone for the replies....it has helped me greatly! Think i'll go for the 17-40mm and buy another lens too!

the_monkey · 29-03-2011 08:15PM

amytomjerry wrote: »

Thanks everyone for the replies....it has helped me greatly! Think i'll go for the 17-40mm and buy another lens too!

You know it makes sense!!

17mm with the 5dII will give you some great wiiiiiiide shots !

enjoy!

Canon 17-40mm f4L Vs 16-35mm f2.8L

Comments