DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Does anybody have proof?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 32, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/09/2006 02:45:21 PM · #1
I have heard many accounts that the Canon 17-40mm f4 lens is sharper than the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 lens. Price is no issue here, the extra 1mm of width, although nice, is not important and neither is the speed difference between the two lenses. I would probably never stop a lens this wide down to 2.8 anyway and it is not necessary for my job. So if anyone has proof that the 17-40mm seems to be a better lens please let me know.
 11/09/2006 02:48:30 PM · #2
Originally posted by bruski:
I have heard many accounts that the Canon 17-40mm f4 lens is sharper than the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 lens. Price is no issue here, the extra 1mm of width, although nice, is not important and neither is the speed difference between the two lenses. I would probably never stop a lens this wide down to 2.8 anyway and it is not necessary for my job. So if anyone has proof that the 17-40mm seems to be a better lens please let me know.


Everything I've read, heard and seen says the 16-35 is better and that some of the 17-40s have had suspect quality control.

I have a 17-40 and have been happy with it, though I've almost entirely used it beyond f11. I didn't need the faster class for WA.
 11/09/2006 02:54:15 PM · #3
Thanks Gordon, by the way, how the heck are you? Long time no type and stuff.
 11/09/2006 02:55:12 PM · #4
Although I don't have direct experience with either of them, everything I've read agrees with Gordon's assessment.
In addition, if you ever intend to move to full-frame, the 16-35 seems to have better corner performance. The 17-40 is pure mud in the far corners anywhere near wide open.
I don't know how they compare with respect to distortion or flare; the former is probably not important as it's so easily corrected.
 11/09/2006 02:55:39 PM · #5
To Gordon-

Hey, and by the way being that you always seem so up to date on the hot and new stuff coming out, have you heard anything on Canon coming out with the next gen of 1Ds? Something like 20+ megapixels?

Message edited by author 2006-11-09 14:57:21.
 11/09/2006 02:56:57 PM · #6
Originally posted by kirbic:
Although I don't have direct experience with either of them, everything I've read agrees with Gordon's assessment.
In addition, if you ever intend to move to full-frame, the 16-35 seems to have better corner performance. The 17-40 is pure mud in the far corners anywhere near wide open.
I don't know how they compare with respect to distortion or flare; the former is probably not important as it's so easily corrected.


Yes I will be stepping up to a full frame sensor, either the 1Ds markII, or whatever replaces it next. So thanks, good info to know.
 11/09/2006 03:11:55 PM · #7
From what I've read, the 17-40 is better at the wide end (17) whereas the 16-35 is better at the other end (35).

Check out the Luminous Landscape for a comparison of the two.

11/09/2006 03:18:54 PM · #8
Originally posted by bruski:
To Gordon-

Hey, and by the way being that you always seem so up to date on the hot and new stuff coming out, have you heard anything on Canon coming out with the next gen of 1Ds? Something like 20+ megapixels?


I read somewhere that there is supposed to be a new 1 series camera early 2007 (PMA?)

Only other gossip I've heard is that the Leica M8 has horrible colour reproduction and purple blacks.
 11/09/2006 03:19:45 PM · #9
The corners of the 17-40 aren't great wide open.
 11/09/2006 03:21:16 PM · #10
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by bruski:
To Gordon-

Hey, and by the way being that you always seem so up to date on the hot and new stuff coming out, have you heard anything on Canon coming out with the next gen of 1Ds? Something like 20+ megapixels?


I read somewhere that there is supposed to be a new 1 series camera early 2007 (PMA?)

Only other gossip I've heard is that the Leica M8 has horrible colour reproduction and purple blacks.


Ok, thanks again to this and your post on the coners of the 17-40 wide open.
 11/09/2006 03:21:45 PM · #11
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
From what I've read, the 17-40 is better at the wide end (17) whereas the 16-35 is better at the other end (35).

Check out the Luminous Landscape for a comparison of the two.


Thank you I will.
 11/09/2006 03:27:27 PM · #12
The MTF charts for the 16-35 are superior to the 17-40.

Take that for what it's worth.

Here's a luminous lanscape comparison of the two...

16mm vs 17mm

Message edited by author 2006-11-09 15:39:12.
 11/09/2006 03:51:13 PM · #13
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The MTF charts for the 16-35 are superior to the 17-40.

Take that for what it's worth.

Here's a luminous lanscape comparison of the two...

16mm vs 17mm


Thanks for the info and the link.
 11/09/2006 03:55:13 PM · #14
Ok, if I may add another question? After reading the comparison on the 2 lenses, i am wondering if i shouldn't just look into Canon's 14mm wide angle prime lens. Does anyone have info on it? I am looking on the web now for myself as well.
 11/09/2006 03:59:04 PM · #15
I see that there are only 5 owners of this lens on the site. Is there anyone, them included, who has had experience with this lens?

Message edited by author 2006-11-09 15:59:16.
 11/09/2006 04:03:06 PM · #16
That's a lot of cash for a pretty niche lens. On a full frame sensor that is ultrawide and I think not many people can justify the price.
 11/09/2006 04:11:45 PM · #17
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's a lot of cash for a pretty niche lens. On a full frame sensor that is ultrawide and I think not many people can justify the price.


I am also starting to see in my quick research that the Sigma variant has a bit of a public following as being a better lens.

I am looking at these wider lenses because there is many times that I need to take images of very large objects in very small spaces. I was just wondering if the primes would offer better image quality at the really wide end as opposed to the zooms. The thing about the zooms is I would almost never come in from its widest point and if I needed to, I also have the 24-70mm. granted there is alot of range between 14 and 24, but I am not sure how often I will need something in between.
 11/09/2006 04:22:22 PM · #18
I did just find a article on Luminous Landscape compairing the Sigma 14mm with the Canon 16-35mm. Seeing what he said about the 2 of them and using a full sensor camera, I am thinking that it would be good just to stay with the zooms. So if anyone was looking into it for me, never mind and thank you for your time. I will just continue to concentrate on the zoom lenses. It almost makes me wish someone made a prime 16mm lens to compair it to the zooms. Oh well.
 11/09/2006 04:25:52 PM · #19
I have never used the 16-35 but I do own the 17-40 and I wouldn't part with it. It's a great lens and I'm completely satisfied with mine.
 11/09/2006 04:28:49 PM · #20
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I have never used the 16-35 but I do own the 17-40 and I wouldn't part with it. It's a great lens and I'm completely satisfied with mine.


Thanks for your opinion John. I am definitely looking for opinions on either lens as well.
 11/09/2006 04:31:16 PM · #21
Originally posted by bruski:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I have never used the 16-35 but I do own the 17-40 and I wouldn't part with it. It's a great lens and I'm completely satisfied with mine.


Thanks for your opinion John. I am definitely looking for opinions on either lens as well.


You won't be disappointed. I chose this one over the 16-35 for a few reasons... it's smaller and lighter, I didn't need f/2.8 on the wide angle lens, the output quality I have witnessed is phenomenal...
11/09/2006 04:32:00 PM · #22
I didn't say above, but I've had the 17-40L before and been very happy. I did part with it, but for the 24-105L and a full frame sensor which gives me the equivalent 17mm on the wide end.

If you are obsessed with lens quality, I am one who will tell you to just start and stop with Canon L lenses. You just won't get comparable on 90% of third party lenses.

If money is less of an object, why not consider going up to a full frame sensor? You can then move into lenses like the 24-70mm which are amazingly sharp and get almost the same coverage on your 1.3x sensor with a 17mm lens.

If money IS an object, you can't go too wrong with the 17-40L. I know kirbic gave it a bit of a thumbs down there above, but I never noticed too much trouble in the corners on a crop sensor. Kirbic is using it on a full frame. You get the "benefit" of not using the worst parts of the lens.
 11/09/2006 08:28:23 PM · #23
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't say above, but I've had the 17-40L before and been very happy. I did part with it, but for the 24-105L and a full frame sensor which gives me the equivalent 17mm on the wide end.

If you are obsessed with lens quality, I am one who will tell you to just start and stop with Canon L lenses. You just won't get comparable on 90% of third party lenses.

If money is less of an object, why not consider going up to a full frame sensor? You can then move into lenses like the 24-70mm which are amazingly sharp and get almost the same coverage on your 1.3x sensor with a 17mm lens.

If money IS an object, you can't go too wrong with the 17-40L. I know kirbic gave it a bit of a thumbs down there above, but I never noticed too much trouble in the corners on a crop sensor. Kirbic is using it on a full frame. You get the "benefit" of not using the worst parts of the lens.


I will be moving up to the full sensor camera and I currently use a 12-24 for my wide angle to make up for the 1.3 conversion factor. That is another reason I am leaning towards the 16-35 because the 12mm on the 1.3 is just wider than 16mm (15.6) and I know that 16mm is wide enough for what I am using the lens for. Money is no object and I know that Canon lenses are the best, I originally went with all my Sigma lenses because money was an issue and I wanted more lenses for the money. Now I need to upgrade to sharper lenses and I know that Canon is about as sharp as it gets.
 11/19/2006 08:25:14 PM · #24
that's interesting... at the moment i feel more biased towards faster lenses but this review is interesting
 11/20/2006 05:11:30 AM · #25
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
From what I've read, the 17-40 is better at the wide end (17) whereas the 16-35 is better at the other end (35).


To my experience the 16-35 is sharper at the wide end of the zoom.

I find the 16-35 to be a tiny bit sharper, but also more flare prone than the 17-40.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 10:44:15 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 10:44:15 AM EDT.