Please help me choose 17-35 F2.8 vs 17-40 F4

[boko]

I have a small budget So I decided a 2nd 17-35 F2.8 or 17-40 F4 canons L lens.
But I'm still confusing about two ones, anyone can help me choose

Thank you alot!

[mishlove]

Without having more info, if I had to choose between the 2 lens as you mention I would choose 17-35 f2.8.

[boko]

Thank you!

Without having more info, if I had to choose between the 2 lens as you mention I would choose 17-35 f2.8.

[Donald]

Boko

Unsure of which lenses your referring to. Do you mean the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the Ef 17-40mm f4L USM? I'm not seeing a 17-35.

Or are you meaning the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM?

[inkista]

Donald, the EF 17-35 f/2.8L USM is an older (discontinued) lens. It replaced the EF 20-35/2.8L, and was in turn replaced by the EF 16-35/2.8L USM, which in its turn was replaced by the EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM II. It's roughly the same price used as a new EF 17-40 f/4L USM, hence the OP's post.

I haven't so much as touched either lens, but from what I'm reading, the 17-40, image quality-wise is actually pretty much on a par with the 16-35 II. And if you don't need f/2.8, it's a smaller, lighter, cheaper way to go. But if you do need f/2.8, the 16-35 II is a step above the 17-35L in image quality, particularly in terms of sharpness. So, imho, the choice is between f/2.8 and sharpness. Whichever matters more pretty much makes the decision.

[boko]

Boko

Unsure of which lenses your referring to. Do you mean the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the Ef 17-40mm f4L USM? I'm not seeing a 17-35.

Or are you meaning the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM?

Yes, I mean the 17-35 lens (it's old lens), this is a discontinued lens.

[boko]

Thank for you reference, It's very impressive about quality of 16-35 image
but about ~700USD, I think 16-35 is un-affordable

Donald, the EF 17-35 f/2.8L USM is an older (discontinued) lens. It replaced the EF 20-35/2.8L, and was in turn replaced by the EF 16-35/2.8L USM, which in its turn was replaced by the EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM II. It's roughly the same price used as a new EF 17-40 f/4L USM, hence the OP's post.

I haven't so much as touched either lens, but from what I'm reading, the 17-40, image quality-wise is actually pretty much on a par with the 16-35 II. And if you don't need f/2.8, it's a smaller, lighter, cheaper way to go. But if you do need f/2.8, the 16-35 II is a step above the 17-35L in image quality, particularly in terms of sharpness. So, imho, the choice is between f/2.8 and sharpness. Whichever matters more pretty much makes the decision.

[rpcrowe]

Boko,

What camera are you shooting with? If you are shooting with a full frame camera, I would recommend the 17-40L, simply because it is presently in production and Canon will support it longer.

If you are shooting with a 1.6x camera, I would say neither! The 17mm side of these lenses is not UWA on a 1.6x crop camera and the 35mm or 40mm long side is, IMO, not long enough for use as a mid-range zoom. One of the 17-50mm Tamron f/2.8 lenses (VC or non-VC) would be a good choice for a reasonably priced 1.6x mid-range zoom. The 80mm equivalent of this lens is, IMO, more useful than the luke-warm 56mm or 54,, equivalents of the two Canon lenses...

[inkista]

Thank for you reference, It's very impressive about quality of 16-35 image
but about ~700USD, I think 16-35 is un-affordable

Er... $1700. If you can find one for $700, grab it!!

And yeah, what Richard said. If you're on a crop and want a 17mm zoom, then get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8. If you want an ultrawide, get a EF-S 10-22 or Tokina 11-16/2.8.

[hoffstriker]

I'm gonna put my "two cents" in on this one.

I have no experience with the older 17-35mm, but the newer 16-35mm is excellent. I know this lens is outta your price range, but I noted that since I have found the IQ of the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm to be very similar (depending upon individual copy). There are some bad copies out there, from reading about examples on the web, but I have yet to have tried one. Both the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm are a tad soft at the long end (for L series lenses), but unless you are going to a 3:1 ratio you will not have a problem.

As for the 17-55mm, you get everything the 17-40mm has plus 2.8 and IS. It's more cost, but equal (possibly better at the long end) optics and made to be hardy. Unfortunately, it's an EF-S lens and if you have any intentions of going to FF you will then not be able to use it. Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens, but from what you already stated it sounds as though it's outta your price range.

As for the Tamron 17-50, without the IS is def. a sharper image than with. I have tried this lens also and simply don't believe it is as sharp as any of the Canon L lens in this mm range. It's not bad and has great color rendition, but I prefer the Canon. There has also been numerous problems with quality control regarding Tamron lens. This has been a consistent problem and can be referenced by doing a simple google search. If you decide to go with a Tamron, check the return policy of where ever you purchase it from to make sure you can test it out at home and if the copy you buy is not good, you are able to return it.

My votes on lenses that is very good and won't break the bank are the 17-40mm L and also the 70-200mm L. I know this leaves a lot in the middle, but you can always fill that in with a "nifty fifty".

Good luck with what ever you decide to buy.

[boko]

Er... $1700. If you can find one for $700, grab it!!

And yeah, what Richard said. If you're on a crop and want a 17mm zoom, then get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8. If you want an ultrawide, get a EF-S 10-22 or Tokina 11-16/2.8.

I mean my budget is ~700US . I'm a FF, so I must goodbye EF-s lenses

[boko]

I'm gonna put my "two cents" in on this one.

I have no experience with the older 17-35mm, but the newer 16-35mm is excellent. I know this lens is outta your price range, but I noted that since I have found the IQ of the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm to be very similar (depending upon individual copy). There are some bad copies out there, from reading about examples on the web, but I have yet to have tried one. Both the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm are a tad soft at the long end (for L series lenses), but unless you are going to a 3:1 ratio you will not have a problem.

As for the 17-55mm, you get everything the 17-40mm has plus 2.8 and IS. It's more cost, but equal (possibly better at the long end) optics and made to be hardy. Unfortunately, it's an EF-S lens and if you have any intentions of going to FF you will then not be able to use it. Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens, but from what you already stated it sounds as though it's outta your price range.

As for the Tamron 17-50, without the IS is def. a sharper image than with. I have tried this lens also and simply don't believe it is as sharp as any of the Canon L lens in this mm range. It's not bad and has great color rendition, but I prefer the Canon. There has also been numerous problems with quality control regarding Tamron lens. This has been a consistent problem and can be referenced by doing a simple google search. If you decide to go with a Tamron, check the return policy of where ever you purchase it from to make sure you can test it out at home and if the copy you buy is not good, you are able to return it.

My votes on lenses that is very good and won't break the bank are the 17-40mm L and also the 70-200mm L. I know this leaves a lot in the middle, but you can always fill that in with a "nifty fifty".

Good luck with what ever you decide to buy.

yes, I have 80-200 F2.8L and 50mm 1.4 USM, for better image quality, I'll choose 17-40 F4L and using PTLens application to correct distortions on it, Thank you!