EF16-35mm F-2.8 VS EF 17-40mm F4

[foxdragon]

Is it worth paying extra S$1000/= to get the EF 16-35mm Lens.
What is the quality like for the EF 1-35mm?
Please advice?

[theroo]

havent used a 16 35, but, i have a 17-40 and a 24-70 2.8L. What i can say is that the 2.8L gives twice as much light so is inevitably faster in low light (and nicer bokeh)

The question (as always) you have to ask yourself is are you going to be in that many low light scenarios where the S$1000 will make a difference. Are you a wedding photographer (when this will help a lot), or just a hobbyist, do you shoot events (when you use flash a lot so it doesnt matter that much) or theatre (when you cannot use flash)?

Your call.

You can always get a second hand 16 35 mkI for approx S$1500.

[yamcake]

get the 16-35
and dont regret..

2.8 is useful..

[Kit]

If you are using the lens stopped down, then do yourself a favour and get the f4. Even if you need something faster, I suggest you spend a little more to get the MK II. Forget about the 1st generation 16-35 f2.8, they are stinkers. I had 3 of those. Not taking f2.8 into consideration, none of the 3 even came close to my f4.

[sweat100]

Personally I would prefer the f2.8 version. You will need the 2.8 especially in weddings and other low light situations, it does help you alot. As for softness, yes, at f2.8 the corners are a tad disappointing. But without the 2.8, I would not be able capture the moment at all. Of course if you are only shooting landscape and events that can use flash, a 17-40 will suffice.

[Goldenstars08]

I got the Canon 17-35 F/2.8 L 2nd hand for 1K. F/2.8 is really useful during low lighting conduction. I did not get the 16-35 F/2.8 L as i am using a 1.6x crop body and don't want to spend the extra $...Happy buying...

[Snoweagle]

f/2.8 is useful but not everything. Depending on how often u shoot under low-lighting, decide on the suitable one. If your lighting's very low, even f/2.0 is not enough without using flash.

[jackietan]

I do not understand who will use 2.8 at landscape wide angle. It look like it's more for quality of glass.

[bernstein1234]

Originally Posted by jackietan I do not understand who will use 2.8 at landscape wide angle. It look like it's more for quality of glass.

2.8 is like, "you don't need it, but it's good to have". Naturally for bigger aperture lens it's all like that, "it's all good to have", cos peopl will never know when they'll need the 2.8. In churches maybe? Or in low light conditions, but not to the extent till you'll need f1.2?

[lennyl]

Don't forget other advantages of f/2.8 : brighter viewfinder image and more accurate AF with xxD body.

[ditikolon]

If money wasn't an issue I'd definitely get 16-35 II... it's great to have in low-light photography. It doesn't mean that you can take photos without a speedlight, but it does let in more ambient light to give background areas more detail, and you can control your fill-in flash better for a more natural scene without having to max out your ISO for a noiser image. I shoot primarily in church and I am very aware that the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is very tangible!

But I have no money, and am saving up for a 17-40L, which is a luxury for me already. It's going to be a major upgrade from my kit lens anyway. The $1000 saved could very well fund a 70-200 f/4L. : )

[MLSK]

This makes lots of sense ..... go get that 1740 & maybe that 70200 next. Photography is a lifetime thing, so you may upgrade to that 1635 at a later stage when $ is available. You cant go very wrong with L's.

Originally Posted by ditikolon If money wasn't an issue I'd definitely get 16-35 II... it's great to have in low-light photography. It doesn't mean that you can take photos without a speedlight, but it does let in more ambient light to give background areas more detail, and you can control your fill-in flash better for a more natural scene without having to max out your ISO for a noiser image. I shoot primarily in church and I am very aware that the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is very tangible! But I have no money, and am saving up for a 17-40L, which is a luxury for me already. It's going to be a major upgrade from my kit lens anyway. The $1000 saved could very well fund a 70-200 f/4L. : )

[StrifeYun]

Its only worth the $$ if you need the tech specs (as much light as possible). to get the job done. how you get the job done is up to you.
Or your getting paid good $$ to justify to get the job done.

f2.8 value for $$ ... NO , same as any expensive Lens , ex stuff are never value for $$.

2 cents

[Snoweagle]

Any lens with larger apertures are always gd to have. If one wants a very large aperture, get primes instead.

[frostyfrostysnowman]

16-35 mkII is tack crazy sharp at 2.8, and certainly trumps the 17-40 in this area.

[Kit]

Originally Posted by frostyfrostysnowman 16-35 mkII is tack crazy sharp at 2.8, and certainly trumps the 17-40 in this area.

Erm.... the 17-40 is an f4..... how to compare to begin with???

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by Kit Erm.... the 17-40 is an f4..... how to compare to begin with???

I suppose what he meant is even when stopped down to f/4, it's even better than 17-40. But i tend to differ, cos i find both are equally sharp at f/4. Tried and tested.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Snoweagle I suppose what he meant is even when stopped down to f/4, it's even better than 17-40. But i tend to differ, cos i find both are equally sharp at f/4. Tried and tested.

Correct. Even most reviews online do state that the 17-40L is sharper in corners, when both the 17-40 and the earlier 16-35 f/2.8 are shooting at f/4.

The later variant of the 16-35 was designed to correct this flaw at the wide end, but it seems from a few reviews that I read closely after the release of the lens, the long end of the lens now suffers from a certain softness at f/2.8.

While I do not have firsthand experience with either variant of the 16-35, I have had plenty of experience with the 17-40, and I can say that it is an amazing, value-for-money lens.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by calebk Correct. Even most reviews online do state that the 17-40L is sharper in corners, when both the 17-40 and the earlier 16-35 f/2.8 are shooting at f/4. The later variant of the 16-35 was designed to correct this flaw at the wide end, but it seems from a few reviews that I read closely after the release of the lens, the long end of the lens now suffers from a certain softness at f/2.8. While I do not have firsthand experience with either variant of the 16-35, I have had plenty of experience with the 17-40, and I can say that it is an amazing, value-for-money lens.

Yes i've to agree with u on that. After using the 17-40 for so long, still serves me very well. Until it's spoilt, i doubt i'll upgrade. The first gen 16-35 does have some issues on the wide end until the II comes which has improved quite significantly.

[Dithiolium]

I have the 16-35 II, but have not tried the 17-40
This 16-35II is a very very sharp lens. Focusing is lightning fast.
I went for this cos I know I will need the F2.8 when I move between outdoor and indoor.
Furthermore it will curb me from the 14L, 24L and 35L for now (the 16-35 II is considered a cheaper alternative for me).

Its difficult for me to carry a tripod when travelling in a foreign country, F2.8 is useful when it gets dark.
This is also my primary event photography lens.

Yes, you can use a flash with the F4. However not all situations its practical to flash.
Besides, if I know I will need a F2.8 someday, I did not want to get the F4 first then upgrade to the F2.8 later, the cost to upgrade is not worth it, I can use the F2.8 now. This is the lightest F2.8 L zoom lens.

Original question:Is it worth paying extra S$1000/= to get the EF 16-35mm Lens?
My answer: If you can afford it, Yes!
Also note: 16-35II uses 82mm front filters. ($$$)