Canon 17-40 vs Canon 16-35 f4 on A7II

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by elandel, Oct 16, 2016.

  1. elandel

    elandel TalkEmount Regular

    145
    Mar 7, 2012
    Milan
    Now I have another question.
    I love wide angle zooms for travelling.
    Better Canon 17-40 or Canon 16-35 f4 on the 7MKII? Talking about IQ and colors and overall quality.

    I can get the 17-40 used for about 500 euro more or less and 16-35 f4 used for 800 euros. Is it worth the difference? I don't think to use it all the time.
    For regular travel use I'm planning to get a general purpose zoom like the 28-70 or 24-240.
     
  2. rbelyell

    rbelyell TalkEmount Regular

    76
    Jan 18, 2015
    i had the 17-40 which has a great reputation. imo, it was very disappointing. i just didnt like the rendering, clarity, contrast etc. i know others will differ, and thats fine. but for the size and price, i personally would consider either a native lens or an adapted zeiss or SP.
     
  3. elandel

    elandel TalkEmount Regular

    145
    Mar 7, 2012
    Milan
    I also read mixed feeling about this lens. What iter lens can I consider in the 500 euro price league.
     
  4. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    I am not a Canon shooter, but I went through this exact decision looking for a reasonably priced landscape zoom. The only native FF option was the FE 16-35Z and I wasn't ready to spend that much. I checked a lot of sites and inquired about both Canon lenses. The general consensus was that the Canon 16-35 is better in every way over the older 17-40. However, most still felt the 17-40 was a real bargain at its asking price. Just check 500px or Flickr and you will find some amazing images taken with the 17-40.

    I ended up choosing the 17-40 with a Fotodiox Pro Auto AF adapter. What swayed me to the 17-40? I felt that if the lens is capable of those kind of shots, priced right, and has such a flexible focal range, then why not. It is so popular that if I bought it used and was unhappy, I would have plenty of buyers without much loss at all.

    So my personal experience with the lens was not bad, but not great. I think the main issue is the lens performs much better on a native Canon body. This has been proven on a few sites. AF was terrible on my A7, but should be much better with A7II and latest firmware. The big problem for me was it is susceptible to flare on its own. This issue was exacerbated by the A7's own internal flare issues and the Fotodiox adapter lack of flocking in the adapter. Since I shoot landscapes and cityscapes, this was very annoying. Many shots would lack contrast or be full of flare, ghosting, orbs and blobs. Sometimes I wouldn't notice in the field and then be thoroughly disappointed when I got home. I ended up selling the lens for the same price I paid for it and went for the FE 1635Z. I also got rid of the A7 which also contributed to flare and got the A7r. With the A7II you shouldn't have that last issue.

    The bottom line is you need to see if the lens will satisfy you for the things you shoot. The good thing is you can likely pick up a used 17-40 and try it out basically for free, so why not?

    Some shots from My A7 + Canon 17-40 combo
    16077833104_a060d359b6_h. Choo Choo! by Gary, on Flickr

    16458074681_fb8db444b6_h. The Frozen Flow (Hemlock Falls) by Gary, on Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 4
  5. elandel

    elandel TalkEmount Regular

    145
    Mar 7, 2012
    Milan
    I really dont quanto ti break my bank for a lens I will use occasionally brut dont Santa to spend 500 euro sforzo something not satisfying. Really hard choice.
     
  6. Golfhacker27

    Golfhacker27 TalkEmount Regular

    26
    May 15, 2016
    The 16-35 is undoubtedly better than the 17-40.
    But for the price (used) of the Canon 16-35, you can get the Sony 16-35 (and save money and weight in not having to buy an adapter, and get native fast AF.
    So the choice is really between Canon 17-40 and Sony 16-35.
    Is the 17-40 good enough? Depends on the depth of your wallet. Plenty of people very happy with it (for the bargain price), me included. As suggested, check out the Flickr user group:
    Canon 17-40 f/4L USM Group
     
  7. elandel

    elandel TalkEmount Regular

    145
    Mar 7, 2012
    Milan
    Thanks. Nice pics. Must take some time to decide.
     
  8. elandel

    elandel TalkEmount Regular

    145
    Mar 7, 2012
    Milan
    Those are very nice. Have you done any PP?
     
  9. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Thanks.

    I shoot raw, so I always PP.
     
  10. pbizarro

    pbizarro TalkEmount Veteran

    358
    Nov 24, 2014
    Portugal
    The 16-35 f4 is a better lens than the 17-40.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1