Canon 17-40 vs. 16-35 mm

[rhadorn]

I did a search in the forum and did not hit any post with my keywords. So, here my question.

I do a lot of stitching. Lately, I did it with pictures taken with the 24-105mm on a 5DII body, mostly set at 24mm, also at 28 mm.

Stitching is not always straightforward and I suppose that the image quality on the edges - there, where stitching programs set their points - has an influence. For this reason - and also to extend the possibilities in the wide angle domain - I am looking for a higher quality wide angle lens. According to the reviews I looked into, the lenses in the title are good options - even better than the fix focus wide angle lenses from Canon. One review attributes higher quality to the 17-40 lens than to the 16-35, another states that the two lenses are equivalent.

Can someone give me a hint, before I put my order on line?

Thanks in advance.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Rhadorn,

The EF 16-35mm F2.8L USM II is my primary "go to" lens for most landscape -- some like to argue that the 17-40 is "just as good" (loosly translated, those who already have a 17-40 and can't afford a 16-35), but from what I've read, the 16-35 is generally regarded as having better edge sharpness.

I don't think you'd be disappointed with the 16-35 II - I wasn't.

[rhadorn]

Thanks for your prompt answer, Colin. I remember I read a lot of positive comments by you about the 16-35.

As a matter of fact, the writer who seemed to prefer the 17-40mm is not just a somebody, but the technical redactor of a good german photo journal (http://www.fineartprinter.de/), so I take his advice quite earnestly, too. He can afford any Leica or Canon TS lens for testing... He is one of the advocates of the use of Leica lenses on the 5DII body.

I hoped to read a bit more reports on experiences with the two lenses in this forum, while the sun went around the Earth. Perhaps my expectations are to high, since people tend to have either the one or the other lens...

Reto

[Jon1]

Rhadorn
hi I am a newbie to the forum, I have had a 17- 4mm for a couple of years but I have to confess I don't us it much because I am primarily a natural history photographer (birds insects mammals in that order) whenever I have used the 17-40mm I have always been impressed by the sharpness and clarity of images taken. I have not used the more expensive lens - is the wider aperture necessary for your type of photography?
Whilst not wishing to sound or appear to be smug I am of the general impression that most lenses are good and many are considerably better than their owners in terms of performance. I think either lens would prove satisfactory, optically speaking - the questions perhaps to consider are cost and aperture. If finance is of little consequence I would tend to go for the more expensive optic, on the rather vague assumption that it would probably perform at least as well under most circumstances and probably better in others. I chose the 17- 40mm after some research and have not been disappointed. Hope this helps??