Posted by Richard Olsen on February 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM
I'm getting ready to purchase a lens and would like some input from the photogs here.
It's going on my 5DII
I have a 24-105 and want to get either a 16-35 or 17-40
As an adder...what is the difference between the 16-35 and the new II model?
Any suggestions and info will be appreciated!!
Posted by Rohn B. McKee on February 27, 2012 at 12:43 PM
I own a 16-35mm Canon
It has more glass (18 compared to 16 elements) then the 17-40mm, costs more. I love mine. However I'm not at all as techical as many on this forum.
Posted by John Mumaw on February 27, 2012 at 1:09 PM
I suspect that many photographers agree with Darwin Wiggett's review comparing those two lenses.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 27, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Richard, I'll share my experience, but not all may agree and that's OK. My first real DSLR for landscape work was the classic 5D and the 17-40mm. At the time I couldn't have been happier, and I dare say that the majority of wide shots on NPN where taken with that combo a few years back, so that 17-40mm for the price was killer. We were shooting Monument Valley at f/14 so who cared about the f2.8 version for an additional $700, right?
In Sept 2008 I saw the still and video samples of the 5D2 and went bananas, immediately sold my 5D and when the 5D2 came in stock in January I nabbed it. With my 70-200mm/2.8 (non-IS version at the time) I was getting image quality that made me dance in my backyard, just an amazing step-up from the 12-bit 12MP 5D. But when I started shooting landscapes and architecture with the 17-40, I was consistently disappointed. Everything just seemed to lack... SOMETHING. I won't try to detail it out, but results were disappointing, it all just seemed flat. The lens had recently been calibrated by Canon in Irvine and on the original 5D it was stellar, so I didn't question my particular lens. After some research (everyone at that time was trying to sort out this gargantuan 21MP sensor and what it all meant so test data was a bit scarce), I finally concluded that the 17-40mm/4 was simply running out of breath as far as resolving power goes. I decided to take a risk: I sold the 17-40mm and ordered the 16-35mm/2.8 II (at $1350 in May 2009 it was my first lens over a grand, my knees shook a bit, lol!), and when that lens arrived and I took it for an intense test drive, the WOWWWWW! returned to my monitor image-quality-wise. I admit, all Canon WA lenses are a pile of mush at the corners, but the overall image quality on this 16-35mm/2.8 II was stellar enough that I quickly forgot the price tag. There's this sweet spot I've discovered on my particular copy at 25mm, f/14 where the image is amazingly detailed, almost uncanny. An example of that is the Cholla Sunrise I posted in the RMNP February Theme (Arizona), and that was shot at 24mm, f/14, 5 exposures. That lens has never disappointed me yet. And if a family vacation arises and everyone wants snapshots of them standing in front of the entrance to Disneyland, toos that 16-35mm on a crop sensor body and you have a killer midrange f/2.8 Hey-Ma-we're-on-vacation set-up.
HOWEVER, there have been a few NPN'ers on here using the 17-40mm with the 5D2 that have gotten stellar images, so they may not agree with my assessment. Some of the work that Jay Patel has done with a 5D2 and 17-40mm is amazing, although I don't know if he still uses that combo.
Anyway, sorry for the book, I just wanted to relate some hands-on experience with the two lenses. Oh, the general consensus is that the newer 16-35mm II is worth the price of admission quality-wise, but that's from reading blogs and reviews, I've never used a series 1 16-35mm. The newer II series has one drawback IMO: the 82mm filter. If you use Singh-Ray ND Grads, the P size are a bit tight unless you handhold, otherwise you need the 4x6 size. I had to buy an 82mm CPL as well. So the investment in this lens is a commitment money-wise, but the IQ to me was WELL worth it.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM
Hey John, good find with that article, that was one I read several times over back then. The one caveat is that DW was right at the time he wrote it when he said the differences between the two are subtle. He was using 1.3 and 1.6 crop sensor cameras for his test which was done before the 5D2 was in the public's hands. I'm thinking that when the 21mp 5D2 light vacuum (that Canon calls a sensor) is mounted behind those two lenses is when we see the wheat separated from the chaff. Just like DVDs at 480 vertical lines of resolution looked amazing on all standard 240i TVs for a decade and even the 480p HiRes models that emerged a few years back, now we're stretching 720x480 DVDs out to our spiffy new 1920x1080 HD TVs and the "stellar" DVD isn't so stellar any more. HD TVs now include upsampling software to try and produce a watchable image. Now we need Blu-Ray to deliver 1080p resolution on a disc. But play a Blu-Ray on a standard def TV and it'll look the same as a DVD. Weird analogy, but to me that's the same application to the 17-40 and the 16-35, FWIW!
Richard, any chance you could borrow or rent a 16-35mm v2? That'd be helpful no doubt... I have one here you can try. You coming down to Scottsdale anytime soon?
Posted by Grant Collier on February 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM
I bought the 17-40 years ago because of the lower price and similar optics. If you need f2.8, you might consider the Nikon 14-24 with a Canon adapter, as it won't cost that much more than the 16-35. Then again, I don't know how this lens compares to the new 16-35 II. I'd guess the 14-24 is superior but you never know.
Posted by John Mumaw on February 27, 2012 at 3:27 PM
"The one caveat is that DW was right at the time he wrote it when he said the differences between the two are subtle. He was using 1.3 and 1.6 crop sensor cameras for his test which was done before the 5D2 was in the public's hands."
According to Darwin's own words, "I used a tripod with mirror lock-up and live view for precision manual focus using my EOS-1ds Mark III with all lenses tested".
The 1DsMkIII is a 21 MP, full frame camera that more closely resembles 5DII IQ at the time of his testing than any other Canon DSLR. I'm not discounting your thoughts on the 16-35 lens at all. Just trying to set the record straight.
Posted by Todd Caudle on February 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM
I had a 17-40 and was often disappointed by its chromatic aberration, even on my APS-C EOS Rebel. When I got the original 5D, I sold the 17-40. I've heard great stuff about the 16-35II, though I've not owned or shot one.
Posted by Jon LaBass on February 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM
I've got a 17-40 on my 5D2 and am considering selling it because it's too soft in the edges for me around 17-20mm. But, before I get rid of it, I'm looking to rent/borrow 17mm TS and 16-35mm to see which I'd prefer. Or maybe the Nikon 14-24 that Grant suggested.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 28, 2012 at 2:37 AM
According to Darwin's own words, "I used a tripod with mirror lock-up and live view for precision manual focus using my EOS-1ds Mark III with all lenses tested".
Doh! I am so busted. John, you're right, he did use the 1Ds MkIII. I didn't re-read the article when you posted it today, I probably should have. I was going on what I remembered THREE YEARS ago, lol. Anyway, I see a huge improvement but I'm not ruling out that my 17-40mm was a dud.
Grant, the Nikon 14-24mm is superior by three orders of magnitude, but it's $400 more than the 16-35mm AND you need the $300 adaptor. But for that high cost you get insanely good edges. You do lose auto focus, not a show stopper for the landscape photogs.
Discussion
9 repliesIt's going on my 5DII
I have a 24-105 and want to get either a 16-35 or 17-40
As an adder...what is the difference between the 16-35 and the new II model?
Any suggestions and info will be appreciated!!
It has more glass (18 compared to 16 elements) then the 17-40mm, costs more. I love mine. However I'm not at all as techical as many on this forum.
In Sept 2008 I saw the still and video samples of the 5D2 and went bananas, immediately sold my 5D and when the 5D2 came in stock in January I nabbed it. With my 70-200mm/2.8 (non-IS version at the time) I was getting image quality that made me dance in my backyard, just an amazing step-up from the 12-bit 12MP 5D. But when I started shooting landscapes and architecture with the 17-40, I was consistently disappointed. Everything just seemed to lack... SOMETHING. I won't try to detail it out, but results were disappointing, it all just seemed flat. The lens had recently been calibrated by Canon in Irvine and on the original 5D it was stellar, so I didn't question my particular lens. After some research (everyone at that time was trying to sort out this gargantuan 21MP sensor and what it all meant so test data was a bit scarce), I finally concluded that the 17-40mm/4 was simply running out of breath as far as resolving power goes. I decided to take a risk: I sold the 17-40mm and ordered the 16-35mm/2.8 II (at $1350 in May 2009 it was my first lens over a grand, my knees shook a bit, lol!), and when that lens arrived and I took it for an intense test drive, the WOWWWWW! returned to my monitor image-quality-wise. I admit, all Canon WA lenses are a pile of mush at the corners, but the overall image quality on this 16-35mm/2.8 II was stellar enough that I quickly forgot the price tag. There's this sweet spot I've discovered on my particular copy at 25mm, f/14 where the image is amazingly detailed, almost uncanny. An example of that is the Cholla Sunrise I posted in the RMNP February Theme (Arizona), and that was shot at 24mm, f/14, 5 exposures. That lens has never disappointed me yet. And if a family vacation arises and everyone wants snapshots of them standing in front of the entrance to Disneyland, toos that 16-35mm on a crop sensor body and you have a killer midrange f/2.8 Hey-Ma-we're-on-vacation set-up.
HOWEVER, there have been a few NPN'ers on here using the 17-40mm with the 5D2 that have gotten stellar images, so they may not agree with my assessment. Some of the work that Jay Patel has done with a 5D2 and 17-40mm is amazing, although I don't know if he still uses that combo.
Anyway, sorry for the book, I just wanted to relate some hands-on experience with the two lenses. Oh, the general consensus is that the newer 16-35mm II is worth the price of admission quality-wise, but that's from reading blogs and reviews, I've never used a series 1 16-35mm. The newer II series has one drawback IMO: the 82mm filter. If you use Singh-Ray ND Grads, the P size are a bit tight unless you handhold, otherwise you need the 4x6 size. I had to buy an 82mm CPL as well. So the investment in this lens is a commitment money-wise, but the IQ to me was WELL worth it.
Richard, any chance you could borrow or rent a 16-35mm v2? That'd be helpful no doubt... I have one here you can try. You coming down to Scottsdale anytime soon?
The 1DsMkIII is a 21 MP, full frame camera that more closely resembles 5DII IQ at the time of his testing than any other Canon DSLR. I'm not discounting your thoughts on the 16-35 lens at all. Just trying to set the record straight.
Doh! I am so busted. John, you're right, he did use the 1Ds MkIII. I didn't re-read the article when you posted it today, I probably should have. I was going on what I remembered THREE YEARS ago, lol. Anyway, I see a huge improvement but I'm not ruling out that my 17-40mm was a dud.
Grant, the Nikon 14-24mm is superior by three orders of magnitude, but it's $400 more than the 16-35mm AND you need the $300 adaptor. But for that high cost you get insanely good edges. You do lose auto focus, not a show stopper for the landscape photogs.