jderden777
Posts: 1677
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 9:56 am

Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:25 pm

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
 
Jkw777
Posts: 4427
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:15 am

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
jkw6210@btopenworld.com or +447751242989
 
LHRSIMON
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 5:59 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:46 am

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
 
jderden777
Posts: 1677
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 9:56 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:59 am

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
 
javibi
Posts: 1295
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:51 am

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
 
mfz
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:54 pm

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:21 am

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
 
TWAMD-80
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 8:25 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:09 am

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!
 
sulman
Posts: 1963
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:25 am

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.
 
TWAMD-80
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 8:25 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:15 am

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!
 
Dazed767
Posts: 4967
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:55 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:51 am

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
 
jfktowerfan
Crew
Posts: 982
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 12:58 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:56 am

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
 
jderden777
Posts: 1677
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 9:56 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:09 am

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
 
siggi757
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 9:19 pm

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:46 am

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
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:59 am

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 avatar
Jofa
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 9:50 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:59 am

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.
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:16 am

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."
 
LHRSIMON
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 5:59 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:55 pm

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
 
javibi
Posts: 1295
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:00 pm

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
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L

Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:35 am

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."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chaity and 8 guests