Canon 17-40 vs 16-35 II

[Charlie Woodrich]

I want to start developing my landscaping skills and I will be purchasing a 5D MK II. I already own a 17-40 but I'm considering the 16-35. It would be an easy decision (meaning if I didn't think it was worth I would just turn around and sell it) if they didn't take different sized filters. I want to get the set up right the first time (dreamer). Any suggestions?

[arash_hazeghi]

I had the 16-35 f/2.8 II for a little while but sold it quickly. The corners on that lens are soft and shady at f/2.8 and all to the way down to f/5.6. For landscape you will be stopping down to f/8 so you will not benefit from a f/2.8 lens any way, and at f/8 the 17-40 is actually a hair sharper. I don't think you will benefit from this lens.

[Charlie Woodrich]

Thanks! I am also considering the Nikon 12-24. I know I lose the AF but my eyes are still good. After all isn't that the way we used to do it? I guess at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much of this crud you buy. It's what you do with it.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks! I am also considering the Nikon 12-24. I know I lose the AF but my eyes are still good. After all isn't that the way we used to do it? I guess at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much of this crud you buy. It's what you do with it.

You can buy the famous Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G (12-24 is a DX lens) and use the G adapter to mount on MKII but you will be limited to f/2.8 and f/8 apertures only since the lens has no aperture ring. I have this lens too and use with my D700, it is too wide for regular landscape and you will end up with lots of empty space in the FG. It is a very specialized lens perfect for dim interiors of churches and other buildings. For landscapes I would just stick with 17-40 and invest in a good PL or ND filter...

[Ed Cordes]

Interesting thread. I have been happy with my 17-40 on a 1.3 crop and 1.6 crop body. There is a rumor that Canon will introduce a 14-24. However, I did wonder how useful the 14 -17 mm would be. Thanks Arash for confirming my suspicion that it is of limited use.

[Don Railton]

Hi Guys,
I too am considering buying a good lense for landscape and wondered if there were any opinions on the 14mm prime compared with the 16-35..

DON

[arash_hazeghi]

Interesting thread. I have been happy with my 17-40 on a 1.3 crop and 1.6 crop body. There is a rumor that Canon will introduce a 14-24. However, I did wonder how useful the 14 -17 mm would be. Thanks Arash for confirming my suspicion that it is of limited use.

It really depends on what you shoot, for landscape it is somewhat limited but if you take photos like this a lot then there is no substitute. I would be happy if Canon produced any super wide angle zoom that was as sharp as the Nikon 14-24 or even the older 17-35, none of current Canon lenses holds a candle compared to these lenses when you use the full angle of view on a full frame camera.




Example of 14mm on Full Frame.

That said, some photographers have special talents and can make use of a 14mm lens for landscape shots, it usually requires to have something to fill the foreground with...the best landscape shots I have personally seen in books and museums are usually no wider than 20mm.

[Jeff Donald]

I've owned several copies of the 17~40mm and all have several optical issues that made the lens less suitable for landscapes. At 17mm through about 24mm the lenses showed very high barrel distortion. This may or may not affect your landscape work, but would be obvious with buildings or other larger, flat subjects. The lenses also had considerable vignetting until around 24mm or the lens was stopped down to f/8, which again might not affect your landscapes. Vignetting can now be fixed easier in Photoshop or Lightroom and this may not be an issues either. The biggest issue though, was low resolution until the lens was stopped down to f/8 or f/11 when the lenses were zoomed below 28mm. This lens performs better on crop bodies, but for the money should be much better.

The 16~35mm has many of the same issues but at the other end of the zoom range. I thought that that it performed much better than the 17~40mm at the wide range, say 16mm through about 24mm or even 28mm. This is the range I shoot most of my landscapes in and I found it to be superior to the 17~40mm for that range and purpose. You mileage may vary. In any event, Canon really doesn't make a great wide angle zoom for full frame cameras. Many Canon landscape shooters go to a manual focus lens from Zeiss or Leica. The Nikon you mention may be a good choice as well.

[Charlie Woodrich]

Thanks all! This appears to be the answer:
Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZE Lens

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Jeff,
did you try 16-35 mkI or mkII? I agree with all you said about 17-40 but at least it is not as expensive. Wideangle for critical work is a real handicapt for canon.

[Jeff Donald]

I actually own the mkII. I had the 17~35 originally and it performed poorly at both ends, so to speak. But the resolution was terrible in the corners at 17mm. It was a good lens from about 20mm to 28mm and stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8. I skipped the mkI 16~35mm because I didn't feel it was much better than the 17~35mm. During the interim I tried several copies of the 17~40 and was not happy with any of them at the wide setting. When the 16~35mm MkII came out I tried it and found that the wide end, 17mm to 24mm, was better than any of the previous lenses I'd tried.

[arash_hazeghi]

I actually own the mkII. I had the 17~35 originally and it performed poorly at both ends, so to speak. But the resolution was terrible in the corners at 17mm. It was a good lens from about 20mm to 28mm and stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8. I skipped the mkI 16~35mm because I didn't feel it was much better than the 17~35mm. During the interim I tried several copies of the 17~40 and was not happy with any of them at the wide setting. When the 16~35mm MkII came out I tried it and found that the wide end, 17mm to 24mm, was better than any of the previous lenses I'd tried.

Thanks Jeff,
Interesting maybe my copy (purchased later 2007) was worse than yours since it was sharp enough only at 40%-50% center circle but bad (dark and soft) in the corners all the way down to f/8, that said I never tried 17-40 on 5DMKII I had it on my 20D and later 40D as my walk-around lens, it was good but FF is a completely different story, I didn't know it was even worse than 16-35. Well I guess this G adapter is so popular and expensive for a reason.

[Don Railton]

Thanks for the 14mm example Arash... It looks pretty good to me. This has made me realise however that if you use any of these wide angles on a cropped body you get all the distorsion without the width to the image.

DON

[Charlie Woodrich]

Arash,

If the Canon combination with the Nikon lens limits you to two f stops how was this test performed? Is the functionality different on a 1 series body?

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Carl- ... test-11118

[Don Hamilton Jr.]

check, this out.....
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=52495

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash,

If the Canon combination with the Nikon lens limits you to two f stops how was this test performed? Is the functionality different on a 1 series body?

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Carl- ... test-11118

You are right, looks like there is no a version 2.1 adapter which allows for all apertures

http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/

however you still need to remove the O-ring from Nikon lens, in the older version you had to physically break a small plastic tab that was on the lens too, this will void Nikon warranty. I personally never used the adapter but samples look good.

[Charlie Woodrich]

I like the idea of being able to use filters with this type of set up, so I'm heavily learning toward the Zeiss. The article rated the Nikon higher than the Zeiss but it was purely subjective and the differences weren't that pronounced.

[arash_hazeghi]

I like the idea of being able to use filters with this type of set up, so I'm heavily learning toward the Zeiss. The article rated the Nikon higher than the Zeiss but it was purely subjective and the differences weren't that pronounced.

If you want filters then also look at the older Nikon 17-35 f/2.8, that lens has a mechanical aperture ring so you don't even need the expensive G adapter, a standard F mount to EOS will work.

The advantage of 14-24 is its unbelievable sharpness at 14mm and f/2.8 combined with negligible optical distortion which makes it great for interior shots, maybe not the first choice for landscape photography.

[Dave Blinder]

... for confirming my suspicion that it is of limited use.

I happily shoot most of my landscapes at 10mm on a 1.6x crop.

[Charlie Woodrich]

Thanks Arash! Your suggestions have been very helpful.