Canon 17 40 Vs 16 35

After a viewer request were going to shoot with each lens and compare the results. I used both lenses and I would say that I prefer 16-35 but not by much.

Canon 17 40 Vs 16 35 - If you're searching for video and picture information linked to the key word you have come to pay a visit to the ideal site. Our site provides you with hints for viewing the highest quality video and picture content, hunt and find more informative video articles and images that match your interests. comprises one of thousands of movie collections from various sources, especially Youtube, therefore we recommend this video for you to see. This blog is for them to stop by this website.

Canon 16 35 F4 Review Hands On Vs 17 40 Shootout Canon Canon Ef Reviews

I have put together a lens comparison test of the Canon 16 35 L II and the Tamron 17 35 28 40.

Canon 17 40 vs 16 35. When it comes to corner sharpness the Canon 16-35 F4 IS is a clear winner with the 17-40 performing softer on corners. And is 97mm long while the 16-3540 L IS weighs 615gr. Focal Length - Wide.

Both lenses take the same 77mm filters and use the same supplied EW-83E lens shade. What is quite different is the price. The 16-35 is slightly taller and weighs about 100 grams more than the 17-40.

Tamron 17-35mm f28-4 Di OSD. It seems like this design difference will help combat flare more efficiently. In a galaxy not so far awaya comparison of Canons Ultra Wide Angle Zoom L lenses - 16-35 f28Lhttpbitly16-35f28 16-35 f4 IS Lhttpbitly16-.

Has a silent focus motor built into the lens. As you can see from the above picture the new 16-35L is almost a 12 inch taller. The different in size is quite noticable mounted on a camera even though mounted on a 5D MK II is very balanced.

The 16-35mm f4L IS USM is FULLY weather sealed while the 17-40mm requires a front filter to help complete the sealing. The 17-40mm lens is 063 inches shorter and weighs about 03 lbs less than the 16-35mm lens. It can be a right PITA for land and seascape work.

17-35mm f28 L 1995-2001 The Canon 17-35mm f28 L 1995-2001 is Canons lightest f28 ultrawide zoom ever has a metal filter thread and great ergonomics with instant manual-focus override and a great focal length. And is 97mm long. The 17-4040 L weighs arround 500 gr.

But again if money is really tight the 17-40mm f4L is still an excellent option. The 16-35mm f4L IS USM lens has 16 elements in 12 groups while the 17-40mm lens only has 12 elements in 9 groups. 16-35 I gets good reviews mk 2 is better but expensive-- a close runner up.

Of course the 16-35 is a full stop faster. Many will appreciate the 16-35 f4L ISs benefits for the difference in price. Just couldt get a slow lens 3.

Here are two great lenses the Canon 16-35 f4 and Tamron 17-35 f28-4. With the current instant rebates in place the 17-40mm f4L is only 25000 less expensive than its 16-35 f4L IS counterpart. Lenses with built-in focus motor focus faster and more quietly than lenses without a focus motor which rely on the cameras body focus motor.

The 17-40 is a great lens but on full frame it has quite pronounced barrel distortion below 20mm focal length the 16-35 is significantly better. I initially tried the Canon 17 40 L but I just was not happy with the sharpness nor the maximum aperture of 40. The included 16-35L lens hood EW-83E is slightly larger and longer than the 17-35Ls EW-83CII.

Reasons to choose Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM over Canon EF 17-40mm f40L USM. The Canon 17-40mm f4 L 2003-today is Canons lightest current ultrawide zoom and has optical performance as good as the newest Canon 16-35mm L II but its only f4 not f28. Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM.

17-55 was the one i went with 1K excellent image quality I just wish it didnt have that telescope design. The sharpness on the 16-35 Mk I and 17-40 is about the same with the 17-40 coming in a little sharper but the color rendition on 16-35 is much better plus you get on extra stop and one extra notch on the wide end. Half of the center sharpness images resolve sharper on the 17-40 irregardless of focal length and F-number.

I was in the market for quite a while looking for a lens which would satisfy this zoom range. For example if you shoot stars at night and you want a wide FOV but also want to shoot at f4 or f35 the 16-35L II is a good choice. However they weight about the same with the 16- 35L only a mere 50g heavier.

For an enthusiast the 17-40L is great. I think the 16-35L II is probably best when you really need the f28 aperture. With regards to corner CA the 16-35 F4 is again the clear winner.

17-40 was just too slow I shoot many things in low light 28 is a must.