Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L  
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 28
Posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5018 times:

i'm looking at getting a wider angle than what my 24-85 gives me and i've come up with a couple of choices, two of which being canon's 16-35 f/2.8L and the 17-40 f/4L....both of which are L glass and i've seen some great results on here from the 17-40. i found a comparison on a website but i just wanted to know if anyone has anything they'd like to share/suggest about these lenses. i'm leaning towards the 17-40L as it is quite a bit cheaper and some results have shown it better than the 16-35 in some areas...

this doesn't concern wide angles but has to do with canon lenses still....has anyone ever stacked a 2x & 1.4x EF extender on canon's 70-200 2.8 IS?

any thoughts are welcome...

jd


"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4894 times:

Hey there,

Unless you really need the extra 1mm and the f/2.8, personally I would generally say go for the 17-40 f/4. Mainly because of the huge price difference.

I'm going to pick myself a 17-40 f/4 in a few months time, as I hear some good things about it. It's quite reasonably priced at my source, so I think it would be the best buy for me.

I have the 24-85 at the moment too, its a fantastic lens but 24mm ain't quite wide enough for me.

As for the stacking of t/c on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I am not sure!

Hope this helps,

Justin Big grin


User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4878 times:

I had the same problem as you but went for the 17-40 L F4 after reading the following report. It basicly states go for the cheaper lens as the quality is equal and in some cases even exceeds the more expensive lens !!!!

Link below......

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml



Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4875 times:

LHRSIMON:

thats the same review i was just looking at....it appears that 17-40 would be the better of the two but i didn't want to base my decision simply on that review...both are L glass and will produce excellent results, there's no doubt about that...the 17-40 will still do great just at the cost of a stop and i don't think the 1mm difference will affect me all that much, however it would be quite a bit cheaper, which is always good  Smile

thanks for the thoughts so far, although i'm interested to see if anyone has any experience with the 16-35.

also, anyone have the 17-85 EF-S for the 300D/20D?? i've heard some people have been unhappy with it, but it would cover the range of the 17-40 & 24-85 in one lens. of course to use this lens i'd have to upgrade to the 20D

jd



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

I've used the 17-40L and 17-85 EF-S for cockpit shots and IMHO the 17-40L gives better results, I wouldn't upgrade to the 20D to get the 17-85... but you might consider doing so to get the 10-22 EF-S!!  Big grin

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=221&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

Regards

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineMfz From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 259 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4830 times:

Hej!

I am also a happy user of the 17-40L. Go for it, you won't regret it. As for stacking extenders I remember that Colin Work used to do this with his Canon 300mm L. It's a shame that not only he but also his excellent photos are gone...  Sad Anyway, as for stacking extenders on the 70-210L f/2.8 I cannot recall anyone reporting personal experiences so far.

Cheers,
Michael



Extra Bavariam non est vita et si est non est ita! --- My flights: http://my.flightmemory.com/mfz
User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4801 times:

I'll go ahead and give you fellas a report on the 70-200 2.8 L IS + 2x converter. I acquired that setup a couple of months ago and it has worked fairly well for me. I haven't been able to use it too much recently as I have been away at school. When I shoot with the 2x attached I usually set the aperture at about f8-f11 depending on how much light I have. I am not one to usually plug my shots, but here are a couple that I used with the 2x attached:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Lane
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Lane


On a separate note I haven't had the chance to give my 17-40 a good test in an airplane yet, but I am sure that it will produce excellent results. Hope this helps!

Tim



Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4795 times:

Hi Tim,

I like your AA MD shot - lots of interesting items in there. The 757 is a curiosity, as it uses the old Rolls variant - not too many of them about now. Who's is it?

James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

Thanks James, the 757 in the shot is N757BJ registered to US Bancorp Leasing & Financial. I have seen it in STL a number of times. On the day that I took that shot, the president of Yugoslavia (I think it was?) was giving a speech in downtown St. Louis. My guess is that on this occasion it flew him in, but I could be wrong. Either way I don't think there are too many BBJ 757's flying around out there.

Tim

Edit: The aircraft was manufactured in 1983 with RB.211 series engines.

[Edited 2005-02-10 23:25:07]


Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

I would like to see more examples of the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS or NON IS, doesnt' matter). I'm looking into the non IS version, and maybe a 1.4x converter. I've tried the 100-400mm lens and the push pull is akward, and it seemed to overexpose my shots a little bit. I've had people tell me go for the 100-400, and I've had people say the qual of the 70-200 can't be beat. So I dunno....

Justin


User currently offlineJFKTOWERFAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4747 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

I have used both and own the 17-40. They are both very sharp, but I don't think the 16-35 is worth the extra almost $700. Here a couple of mine if you would like to compare them(the light and dark is not the best comparison but it's all I have Big grin )

16-35:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Corey Robinson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Corey Robinson



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Corey Robinson



17-40:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Corey Robinson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Corey Robinson



Corey



C'mon Man
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4672 times:

corey,
nice shots man you've got some good stuff and keep it up....i wish that S-92 would have gotten the contract for marine one!!!

does anybody have any thoughts on the 17-85 EF-S and the 10-22 EF-S lenses for the 20D...i'm weighing the options of possibly upgrading i'd just like to find out some more about that 17-85, it would ecompass the 17-40 and 24-85 in one lens, which would be very handy indeed.

thanks for all the replies, seems like everyones happy with the 17-40L, which if i keep the 10D thats most likely what i'll go for

jd



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineSiggi757 From Iceland, joined Oct 2001, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4660 times:

I've been using a 70-200 F/2.8L IS and an EF 2x Extender. I find that mine needs to be stopped down to F/9.0 to give acceptable results. In other words it gives just adequate results at F/9.0 but I find that it is a poor performer at bigger apertures. Don't dream of similar results as you get from the 70-200 F/2.8L IS without the extender. I've read that the EF 1.4x Extender works much better with the 70-200.

I also have the 17-40 F/4L but I am thinking about selling it. It is a great walkaround lens but I find that I am using my EF 50 F/1.4 much more often even though it costs me more trouble to frame the shot and of course much narrower field of view. The 17-40 F/4L is a very impressive lens but if you like to take photos with available light the F/4 is very limiting.

And since I haven't plugged for a long time here is one I took with my 300D and EF 50 F/1.4 (amazing lens...the 50 F/1.8 is also very good and probably the biggest bang for the buck in the Canon EF lineup...a must have)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sigurdur Benediktsson



Cheers,
Siggi  Smile


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4613 times:

The great 16-35 vs 17-40 debate.
Well if i was you i'd be buying the 10-22.From both my and many of the guys at Fred Miranda's the 10-22 is every bit as good as the 17-40 and then some.Plus its 7mm wider!!
If and i say if you can find a good 16-35 never let it go as they are few and far between but are amazing if you are lucky enough to find one.
Best value for money is the 10-22 where i sit now a superb lens and as good if not better than its L counterparts.
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineJofa From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4597 times:

I can only repeat what others have said, the 17-40 is a very nice piece of glass. I have used it mostly for nightshots on the ramp.

User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4594 times:

Would the 17-40 work as a walk around lens? Say on family trips or just shooting on a vacation or day trip?

Thanks again for any help!

Ua777222



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4559 times:

Yes..... I have been told its the best Multi task lens available. And thats the reason i got it  Smile

The only surprise when i got it though was the fact its quite big. Appx 10 cms / 4 inches long !!



Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4563 times:

Definitely the 17-40L it is a very good carry around lens for vacation shots (on digital with a crop factor 1,6).

Regards

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4540 times:

Well I'm trying to figure out what is best. Use the 17-40 as a wide angle lens and get a used 28-70 lens for walk around. Or get say a 10-22 for wide angle and use the 17-40 for a walk around lens. I would like to have an ultra wide angle while still having a walk around. I am ready to buy 2 different lenses to get the job done but can't figure out which to find. I also heard some rather good remarks about the much less expensive Sigma 15-30mm EX. If anyone could give me an idea of what I should do that'd be great!

Thanks for all the help!

Ua777222



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 17-40L F/4 Vs. Tamron 17-35 F/2.8-4 posted Sun Dec 19 2004 20:29:50 by Mfz
Is The Canon 17-40L Enough.... posted Wed Nov 10 2004 20:57:12 by Gmonney
Canon 17-40L? posted Fri Sep 3 2004 23:12:18 by BA747-436
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400 posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:42:06 by Donder10
Canon 28-300 Is USM Vs. 100-400 Is USM posted Wed Sep 28 2005 19:16:27 by Stefan
Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III Vs. Sigma 70-300mm F posted Wed Mar 16 2005 05:16:57 by SkyWestFan
17-40 F4 Vs. 17-35 F2.8 posted Tue Jul 20 2004 06:18:01 by Futterman
Canon 17-40 Vs. Sigma 17-35 posted Mon Dec 27 2004 23:50:31 by WorldspotterPL
Canon Rebel XTi / 400D Vs. Nikon D80 posted Sat Oct 28 2006 23:03:29 by 9V
Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 Is USM posted Mon Jul 17 2006 13:41:22 by FlyingZacko