17-40 vs 16-35..you be the judge

[+evenstar]

16-35 @ 16mm @ f4


17-40 @17mm @f4


16-35 @ 35mm @f4


17-40 @35mm @f4

[+evenstar]

16-35 @35mm @f5.6


17-40 @35mm @ f5.6


all images straight out of camera, only resized.

edit: all images shot at ISO 100, f4/5.6, 0.5s, with MLU

70-200 f2.8L vs 70-200 f2.8L IS comparison coming soon!

PS: this isn't a very good test i know...but differences can be seen.

[ianpaice]

Did I interpreted incorrectly? I see the 17-40 having better contrast.

[+evenstar]

forgot to add in...the paper used is a piece of A4 foolscap paper flat against a wall

[DeSwitch]

wait a minute.... the picture of 16-35 seem like no filter attached while the 17-40 hav a B&W filter. did you test shot both with or without filter?

Filter may make some difference..

[An drew]

The images are of different sizes although the focal lengths are supposedly the same. Perhaps you should shoot some test charts for your next test.

What are you conclusions with regard to the two lenses?

[+evenstar]

both are without filters...i'll do a re-shoot again over the weekend when i get hold of some focus charts..

[dan_1337]

looking forward to seeing the results.

[kzone]

looks like the 16-35 is able to capture more details...

[calebk]

Bro, you got sensor dust.

[+evenstar]

Originally Posted by calebk Bro, you got sensor dust.

yea that i know....changing lenses in the open, that's unavoidable...

[USM]

Brother, as per your request, I shall post my comment here. This is just my personal opinion.

First of all, what is the objective of this test? EF 16-35mm f2.8L vs EF 17-40mm f4L.

There are a few questions which are not provided by you.

1) Are you comparing their resolution details, contrast, distortion and vignetting?

2) Did you test these lenses in a brightly lit environment or simply in your room? Any unexposure be a slightly or not will cause your test to be unwarranted. It also affects the contrast and highlight. Ideally, it should be done in a daylight environment.

3) ISO used? Technicially speaking it should be as low as possible in order to prevent high noise level.

4) Did you use a tripod and cable release to take these shots? Any kind of movement, be it hand or camera shake can cause variances in your testing results.

5) Did you use a FF camera body? Using crop factor camera bodies like your 1D mk II (1.3x crop) cannot really show the distortion and vignetting of these 2 wide angle lenses. Moreover, 1mm difference between these 2 lenses actually makes 1.3mm difference in your 1D mk II.

Therefore, doing lens testing is not that a simple procedure. That's why a lot of lens testing sites give misrepresentation to the general public because they did not follow certain procedure. So far, luminance landscape site provides quite good lens testing results.

[paikia]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

[Static]

Originally Posted by USM Brother, as per your request, I shall post my comment here. This is just my personal opinion. First of all, what is the objective of this test? EF 16-35mm f2.8L vs EF 17-40mm f4L. There are a few questions which are not provided by you. 1) Are you comparing their resolution details, contrast, distortion and vignetting? 2) Did you test these lenses in a brightly lit environment or simply in your room? Any unexposure be a slightly or not will cause your test to be unwarranted. It also affects the contrast and highlight. Ideally, it should be done in a daylight environment. 3) ISO used? Technicially speaking it should be as low as possible in order to prevent high noise level. 4) Did you use a tripod and cable release to take these shots? Any kind of movement, be it hand or camera shake can cause variances in your testing results. 5) Did you use a FF camera body? Using crop factor camera bodies like your 1D mk II (1.3x crop) cannot really show the distortion and vignetting of these 2 wide angle lenses. Moreover, 1mm difference between these 2 lenses actually makes 1.3mm difference in your 1D mk II. Therefore, doing lens testing is not that a simple procedure. That's why a lot of lens testing sites give misrepresentation to the general public because they did not follow certain procedure. So far, luminance landscape site provides quite good lens testing results.

[Gunbucker]

I based my purchase decision partly on luminous landscape tests, and couldn't be any happier. For the focal lengths I use the wide-angle for (17mm to 22mm), and apertures f/5.6 and smaller, the 17-40mm f/4L gives excellent sharpness, contrast, and color.

[Snoweagle]

I find the 17-40 better in terms of contrast than the 16-35 at the wide end.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Snoweagle I find the 17-40 better in terms of contrast than the 16-35 at the wide end.

Which was proven by Luminous-Landscape reviews also. At the long end, however, the 16-35 seems to have the upper hand, although in real life applications the 17-40 I used was plenty sharp at 40mm.

[AReality]

Originally Posted by calebk Which was proven by Luminous-Landscape reviews also. At the long end, however, the 16-35 seems to have the upper hand, although in real life applications the 17-40 I used was plenty sharp at 40mm.

I used both lens before and I have to very much agree with u.

Compairing the 2 only, 16-36 is better in the real world. 17-40 just seems a stop too slow, and misses the intended focal plane occasionally especially when u shoot wide.

Heck, and if they ever come out with a 15-30 f/2.0, i'm sure it'll be much much better than the 16-35 too.



.

[dan_1337]

imo, if i'm looking at either of these two lenses, i think that i would be buying on the fact that 2.8 is one stop brighter than 4.0 and i shoot at 2.8 enough to justify the extra cost of the 16-35.

otherwise, the 17-40 would be ideal.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by calebk Which was proven by Luminous-Landscape reviews also. At the long end, however, the 16-35 seems to have the upper hand, although in real life applications the 17-40 I used was plenty sharp at 40mm.

I remembered one review which tested at 100% crop at the tele-end (but forgot which review site), it showed the 16-35 losing out fine details as compared to the 17-40.