1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

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

Discussion in 'Canon Conflab' started by Bazarchie, Jul 30, 2020.

  1. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    I am about to trade in my 17-40 for a 16-35.

    I have had the 17-40 for several years, initially on APS-C cameras, more recently on FF. For me it has been fine although I tend to use it at optimal apertures.

    Good move or expensive upgrade for little benefit?

    (somewhat loaded question, I have done a lot of research, but until I actually try it for a while myself, I don’t know)
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Good move. Edge definition is better with the 16-35 and the 1 mm is noticeable. I traded my 17-40 for the 16-35 which mitigated the price.
     
    Bazarchie likes this.
  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    It's a huge improvement. Much sharper, especially at the edges and in the corners, and at wide apertures. I never really liked the 17-40 - I LOVE the 16-35,
     
    Bazarchie likes this.
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I don’t think I’ve the same scene taken with both but I’ll have a look.
     
  5. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I never had the 17-40, and I've not used the 16-35 f4 enough, but when I have used it, it's lovely (paired with the 6D) and it's got a nice walkabout range when on the 7D2.
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  6. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I have no experience of the17-40 but the 16-35 does give an indefinable sparkle to it's images that I do get with any of my other lenses
     
    Bazarchie likes this.
  7. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    Or don't get maybe?
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  8. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Oops sorry. I blame the spell checker
     
    Gezza likes this.
  9. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    I bought the 17-40 a few years ago
    Never really used it, so sold it
    Then picked up another (mint boxed) not used it once! Also bought the ef-s 10-18 IS STM (mint boxed) again maybe used once.
    I find them both extremely difficult to use, as in previsualise a scene as they both bring a very dramatic view at the wide end that I find never really looks natural.
    Certainly for me they are not a walkabout lens as they tend to distort distances to such a degree that I have to keep my eye glued to the viewfinder until the composition balances...i.e. Works.

    This is clearly my own issue with ultra wides. Yep, I’m odd :eek::confused:
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2020
  10. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    I went for a trade -in, the replacement arrived today I will try it this weekend.
     
  11. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    Good luck with it, absolutely love mine.
     
    Bazarchie likes this.

Share This Page