Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4?

**stepheno** · 22-01-2008, 08:46

I'm looking for a wide angle lens to be used on a full-frame. Both of these lenses are excellent in all respects but does anyone think that the 16-35, with a constant f2.8, is worth nearly twice the price of a 17-40?

I did look at the Sigma 12-24 but it does seem a bit eccentric - popeye, no front filters, and the IQ won't compare. Thanks in anticipation

silkstone · 22-01-2008, 09:55

The question is, with the good high-ISO performance of modern DLSRs, so you really need something twice the price/weight for one extra stop?

The 17-40L is a great lens, and not too big.

BTW, fully understand your comments about the Sigma 12-24. However, the FoV at 12mm on full frame is awesome, and that helps to mitigate some of its eccentricities!

**stepheno** · 22-01-2008, 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by silkstone

However, the FoV at 12mm on full frame is awesome, and that helps to mitigate some of its eccentricities!

I'd only just discounted that one and now you bring it back into the frame

_MB_ · 22-01-2008, 11:11

Have to ask yourself how useful f2.8 is on a wide angle lens. If you're shooting interiors, perhaps it is. If you're shooting landscapes, it is totally irrelevant.

**stepheno** · 22-01-2008, 11:36

Sensible point MB

silkstone · 22-01-2008, 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepheno

I'd only just discounted that one and now you bring it back into the frame

The best thing is to call round sometime and borrow mine for a week or two - no obligation at all, and since I don't use it at the moment it may as well go out to play with someone else!

**stepheno** · 22-01-2008, 14:29

Thankee kind sir, I'll take you up on that

P-E · 24-01-2008, 07:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepheno

anyone think that the 16-35, with a constant f2.8, is worth nearly twice the price of a 17-40?

Good question

I used to have the 17-40 f4 which receives some excellent reviews but soon sold it as it wasn't for me. Bought the 16-35 2.8 and just last year the MKII and I'm really happy with it and often use 2.8 for interior shots.

**stepheno** · 24-01-2008, 07:15

Thanks for your opinion P-E

Parksy · 31-01-2008, 11:03

Crickey, someone else with the same dilemna!

I want one of these two to replace my Sigma 15-30 as my wide-angle of choice on my 30D. I will need to use it both for landscapes and indoor work (I do some dance stuff in Theatres etc.).

If it was only the landscape work, then I think the 17-40 would be a better choice as I tend to try and shoot at nearer f22 for D0F reasons, so the extra saving of around 100g when walking and the quids in the pocket are appealing. However, for the indoor work the f2.8 would be useful.

Let me know how you get on with your decision!

**stepheno** · 03-02-2008, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parksy

If it was only the landscape work, then I think the 17-40 would be a better choice as I tend to try and shoot at nearer f22 for D0F reasons, so the extra saving of around 100g when walking and the quids in the pocket are appealing. However, for the indoor work the f2.8 would be useful.

My sentiments too. Welcome to Pixalo and if you feel inclined we have a Welcome-Forum

P-E · 05-02-2008, 20:46

You made your mind up Stepheno

**stepheno** · 05-02-2008, 21:12

Nope....but I'm not far off

**Sonsey** · 05-02-2008, 21:33

If money isn't too much of an issue then I'd spring the extra for the 16-35 f/2.8 mk.II... either would be great for landscapes but if you foresee yourself using it for anything else then the f/2.8 will be handy to have.

**stepheno** · 07-02-2008, 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-E

You made your mind up Stepheno

I have now....I've just bought a 17-40. The price on a mint, used, was too good to pass up. Thanks for everyone's help in this thread

22-01-2008, 08:46	#1 (permalink)
stepheno Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,844	Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? I'm looking for a wide angle lens to be used on a full-frame. Both of these lenses are excellent in all respects but does anyone think that the 16-35, with a constant f2.8, is worth nearly twice the price of a 17-40? I did look at the Sigma 12-24 but it does seem a bit eccentric - popeye, no front filters, and the IQ won't compare. Thanks in anticipation

22-01-2008, 09:55	#2 (permalink)
silkstone Feet under the table Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Silkstone Common, Yorkshire, UK Posts: 3,754	Re: Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? The question is, with the good high-ISO performance of modern DLSRs, so you really need something twice the price/weight for one extra stop? The 17-40L is a great lens, and not too big. BTW, fully understand your comments about the Sigma 12-24. However, the FoV at 12mm on full frame is awesome, and that helps to mitigate some of its eccentricities!

22-01-2008, 11:11	#4 (permalink)
_MB_ Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Northumberland, UK Posts: 829	Re: Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? Have to ask yourself how useful f2.8 is on a wide angle lens. If you're shooting interiors, perhaps it is. If you're shooting landscapes, it is totally irrelevant.

22-01-2008, 11:36	#5 (permalink)
stepheno Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,844	Re: Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? Sensible point MB

22-01-2008, 14:29	#7 (permalink)
stepheno Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,844	Re: Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? Thankee kind sir, I'll take you up on that

24-01-2008, 07:15	#9 (permalink)
stepheno Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,844	Re: Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? Thanks for your opinion P-E

31-01-2008, 11:03	#10 (permalink)
Parksy New here Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Buxton, UK Posts: 1	Re: Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? Crickey, someone else with the same dilemna! I want one of these two to replace my Sigma 15-30 as my wide-angle of choice on my 30D. I will need to use it both for landscapes and indoor work (I do some dance stuff in Theatres etc.). If it was only the landscape work, then I think the 17-40 would be a better choice as I tend to try and shoot at nearer f22 for D0F reasons, so the extra saving of around 100g when walking and the quids in the pocket are appealing. However, for the indoor work the f2.8 would be useful. Let me know how you get on with your decision!

05-02-2008, 20:46	#12 (permalink)
P-E Loves the place Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sheffield, S.Yorkshire UK Posts: 7,801	Re: Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? You made your mind up Stepheno

05-02-2008, 21:12	#13 (permalink)
stepheno Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,844	Re: Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? Nope....but I'm not far off

05-02-2008, 21:33	#14 (permalink)
Sonsey Pixalo Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: N. Ireland Posts: 7,259	Re: Canon - 16-35 f2.8 MkII or 17-40 f4? If money isn't too much of an issue then I'd spring the extra for the 16-35 f/2.8 mk.II... either would be great for landscapes but if you foresee yourself using it for anything else then the f/2.8 will be handy to have.

08-02-2008, 06:43	#16 (permalink)