While „real world“ comparisons are more on the subjective side, a lab test is an objective comparison/test. Both complement each other in making a decision, but neither is enough alone imo, for buying expensive glass.
Sorry to reply to such an old comment - but I agree. Seeing technical reviews, pixel peeking, diagrams and charts are helpful but can create mountains out of molehills. For most of us who probably fall into the pro-sumer or semi-pro or serious-hobbyist category, we're not printing our work on billboards or sides of box trucks and therefore the extra sharpness probably isn't enough to justify $400 extra. Likewise, if a job did come up where you did need that type of detail in something like a real-estate photo job or a landscape, you can digitally stitch the photos so you're only using the sharpest area of the photos to composite into one ultra sharp shot. IS is nice, but again - some of us need to count our coppers a little more closely than others, and unless I have a sudden windfall of cash sometime soon - looks like the 17-40 is on the menu for me.
I have been using the 17-40 for quite a few years now. I use it now on my Canon 5DSR, a very unforgiving , HIGH MP resolution. I have no issues what so ever with this lens. The "PIXEL PEEPERS" out there find fault in something in it anyway. I have printed large (1000mm wide) NO issues with prints. Contrast can be corrected in LR/PSCC. I can't justify the expense. Happy with the results from the 17-40mm. Good clean comparison Adam.
Adam, I really like these kinds of videos where equipment is tested in a real-life environment. It is far more meaningful than reading a ton os statics, graphs, and tables. Please keep up the good work! Thanks!
Thanks buddy. Glad you enjoyed it. The lab tests are fine but I want to share my real world experience of the gear. Mainly because that's what I am interested in hearing about from others.
Hi Adam, I switched from 17-40 to the 16-35 a few years back and been enjoying the lens since. I don't shoot much at F16 usually at larger apertures (F8-F11) and overall I'm very happy with my switch. I truly enjoy your videos - thanks for posting.
Most excellent real world comparison ! Have had the 17-40 for 5 years now when I went from crop ( 10-22 ) to full frame. Always liked the idea that you were one of the only landscape bloggers on the tube that used the 17-40. Have been struggling for a year or so now about switching but I was thinking if it's good enough for Adam it's good enough for me ! Now that you have gone to the 16-35 I may have to consider it more seriously.
Ha sorry Tom. The 17-40 is a great lens and it was really the IS for video that is the clincher for me. The chromatic aberration can often be removed in post and it's the photographer that makes the picture, not the lens. Its definitely diminishing returns once you go beyond the 17-40mm too.
I did not watch the whole video but it seemed to me that you did not mention that the 16-35mm f2.8 comes in three different versions and they are totally different. So which version did you use?
Having changed from the 17-40l to the 16 35 f4 is recently after a year of thinking about it I'm gutted I didn't do it earlier, the difference is night and day. Corners on the older lens were horrific!!!
Hi Adam, I was just at this location about six weeks ago. I was hoping to photograph the shot that you have shown here but I thought that it was much firther away from the viaduct than it actually is. I actually walked out to the next ridge towards the viaduct not realizing that I was SO close. I did get a few good shots however and was rushed a bit by my with and son suffering a little bit of motion sickness as we drove through the Dales, down from Thwaite and the Lakes District. Truly an amazing part of the world and worthy of a return trip. We got home, to Canada, before the shut down of everything and are all healthy. I hope that you stay the same and are able to keep the videos coming during this challenging time.
Thanks for the review. I'd like to add that I've used both lenses many years (especially the 17-40/F4) but I was impressed by the improved sharpness of the 16-35/F4 at large apertures, especially in the corners. The IS makes it much easier to shoot at slow shutter speeds, when shooting off-tripod. I get sharp pictures at 1/8 sec! So I highly recommend the 16-35.
Not a bad comparison I all ready have the 16-35 I would like to know more about the 24-70 vs 24-105 I have both older ones want to upgrade but which do I upgrade and to what
my camera doesn't have video and plus my camera is 14 years old it's a canon 400d 10.1 megapixel camera. i want to get an up to date camera that can do everything plus video. so what you think about the 10-18 wide angle lens. so you said this is a much better lens and it will make my pictures better i don't know i want to spend that kind of money on a camera lens but if it's going to make my pictures solid then i will have to invest in one. i love taking pictures especially wide angle ones but i want to buy 2 more cameras i want your opinion on the canon sl1 and sl2
Why did this pop up in my feed 2 years later?.... But it is very relevant as I’m looking at a used copy of the 17-40 (cheap too) I think I’ll go for it! Thanks
What a fabulous place! I suggest that you get a depth-of-field app and do some serious thinking about how the circle of confusion for f/16 relates to the pixel stride of your camera’s sensor. I think that f/16 is getting a bit too small for modern sensors, but you have to decide what will work for you. I find that what keeps making me choose one lens over another is chromatic aberration and flare, what Zeiss calls micro-contrast. I’ll bet you will really like your new lens. OSS is also important for sharpness.
I have a canon 80d and i use 50 1.8, i am thinking of getting this lens 16-35 f/4, i generally take family and friends photograph and very less landscape, could you please tell is this a right lens for me..
I remember a UA-camr going to the Ribble Head Viaduct and it was sheeting down with rain, I’ve forgotten who that was...? I have the 16-35 L f2.8 mkII, and I have to say it’s a lens I love but I wasted at least half the money I spent on it. A very good, fair and objective video, with an honest review.
It seems to me to be hard to justify the price difference between the two when chromatic adoration and distortion can be corrected with two mouse clicks in PS, especially as I dont shoot video, so an eye opening and interesting comparison video.
i did same and i seeen diffrent on my canon 5DS, what camera are you using? biggest different is in how its handle highlights and sharpness in corners , in my case i keeept 16-35 f4
The extra 1mm from 17 to 16 is also worth mentioning. I used a Nikon 17-35 for years and lost count of the times I could just have done with been a tiny bit wider :)
Another informative video Adam. Many thanks. I switched from my old 17-40 to this 16-35 lens after buying my first full frame DSLR. It may have been my copy of the older lens, but I was struck by how markedly better the 16-35 was in the corners in terms of sharpness. It was so obvious even on the back of the camera image when I did some test shots at the camera shop that I had little hesitation. Cheers - Paul
Sometimes some micro focus adjustment is required, although that shouldn’t be necessary. I’ve had the 17 to 40 for years but when I upgraded to the 5D Mark IV I saw a noticeable increase In sharpness from the exact same lens. I have no idea why.
Morning mate Can You tell me How expensive is That printer what U got and paper with ink what is the cost, I mean what's the average prints on the tonners Compare to Cost Thanks Have a good day
So better glass means better pictueres. Now momey not being a factor. Would buying the 16-35 mm make sence for a crop sensor DSLR like the Canon t7i. Ofcourse you'd be at a different focal length bc of the crop but would the quality of the fotos be better than if I were to go for a 10-22??
I just picked up a 17-40 in "excellent plus" condition, comes with caps, hood, and case. For just under $300. It would be nearly double that to get the 16-35 f4. For someone like me stretching dollars for my first L glass I happily used the savings to also afford a 24-105 f4. I'm very much looking forward to my new pair of budget tools.
Great comparison Adam. In all honesty for me, the difference is so negligible that the price is not worth it for me. I do have issues with people who say why haven't you got this bit of kit? why do you use that old lens? etc I use what I can afford,and let all the must have the latest gear brigade get on with it
Agree.. a photographer told me ur camera the 600D is not a pro one its such a bad camera and i was hurted at first.. but i love it and i enjoy taking pics with it always..
@@Firstmanphotography I guess I do have a very bad copy of the 17-40 The corners I get don't look like yours in the video. Mine look like smudges as if I am using a tilt shift lens. Only the middle is sharp
I picked up my 17-40 for $200 in mint condition. Couldn’t be happier. It is an excellent match with my new Canon R8. I think the whole boke (or bokeh, as some say) obsession is mostly irrelevant, but I notice that on 40mm there is a delightful softness or ‘fog’ to the background. With the light sensitive digital cameras of today, F4 is no issue at all. I started shooting Kodachrome and Ektachrome 135mm film back in the 1970s and getting enough exposure mattered much more than today, but with longer exposure times and a tripod, or a ‘bulb’ flash even, we managed somehow. To have the 17-40 F.4 is a real treat and I wish more photographers had the same appreciation of this quality lens as I have. PS. I have never in my life been more pleased with any photos I took, than with my old Contax II with a Carl Zeiss lens from 1953 or thereabouts. I feel sorry for the many who are lost in a digital jungle of today. Back then, we put most if our attention on the subject matter and not on the equipment itself.
Interesting video. Two excellent lenses. I understand the rationale behind using identical photo editing but also see the counter argument that different tools have to be used differently. My takeaway is that with good skills and technique either of these lenses are going to do the job but if you are chasing numbers and test scores the newer lens wins out
Just done a very similar exercise with my Nikon 24-85mm f3.5 VR versus the 24-70mm f2.8 and the picture quality differences are marginal. The big differences are size, weight, and cost. At the moment I am thinking the 24-70mm may be just too big and heavy for me but I need to do some more pixel peeping and some printing to be 100%. Nice variation on topic Adam well done.
Hey, great review. I’m planning to buy a wide angle lens, is the 17-40 for €350 used worth it, or should i buy a 16-35 for €800? I’m pretty confused... how big of a difference is the upgrade?
Hi Adam. Your videos are always engaging and informative. I'm a Nikon user so will probably never use either of these lenses but I always learn loads from you, so this is a must-see for me. It's a toss up between the two lenses for me but like any aspect of photography, it's personal choice that counts. Really enjoyed the comparison Adam. many thanks for sharing. P.S. great B-roll footage on the limestone pavement btw!
Thanks Tim. I've been keen to get back there with the drone. I just couldn't resist flying through. I know it's a Canon centric video but I wanted to provide some other parts to the video that would appeal to everyone. The new lens vs old lens is worth considering whenever we're on the verge of upgrading, and whatever system we use.
Great review, Adam. I was wrestling with this very choice last January. Finally spent the extra cabbage for the newer lens. IS was a factor. I'm very happy with it, especially since I had nothing in this focal range already. A real decision would be for current owners of the 17-40. It doesn't look like the 16-35 is enough better to justify a kit upgrade except for the well-heeled.
Yeah I agree. It would be tough to justify if it was just for stills. The IS was a big part of my decision to keep it. I'm also not interested in the extra weight of the 2.8 at this point.
Thanks for the review. What happened when you compared the images after applying Lightroom's normal Lens & Chrom Ab corrections? - My guess is there would be nothing between the lenses. And if shooting RAW, why are slight differences in colour and contrast a concern?
hey man.. was looking to get a 17-40 on a speed booster for my sonya6500.. but what an amazing place... could you let me know some tips on where to go at the yorkshire glades? Im actually coming to UK in June and will be in Bradford for about a week. thanks dude!
I remember back when I moved to full frame (6D + 24-105m L IS USM Kit) and I decided I'd put all my remaining money into one lens. I sided with the 16-35mm F/4 L IS USM and I'm very glad I did.
Good stuff. I'm looking forward to using it more. I owned the 24-105 in the past too. Its a massively underated lens and the focal range is extremely useful.
I have to say, I preferred the 17-40 image here.. I've never been overly happy with my 17-40, I think it's a soft one. I used to have a 10-22, which was so much sharper! Losing that lens is my only regret with upgrading from the 350D..
UA-cam doesn't always help with these videos with the compression. Have you tried micro focus adjustments in the settings? I had a Sigma 35mm ART lens and it turned a soft lens into a really sharp one.
Adam, have you done any astrophotography with the 16-35mm? This lens has everything speaking for it other than the speed, but I thought that with a bit of stacking, results might be usable.
So one more challenge for you as to which one is better. Using both lenses to shoot video, which one is better - it's no contest. Shooting videos is how the winning lens will sometimes be used. Now the winning lens for video has one small drawback, what is it?
Funny how I was about a mile away from you on one of the peaks called Pen-Y-Ghent also shooting the summer solstice, if only I knew you were at Ribblehead!
First Man Photography No it was amazing up there, got some nice cloud coverage over the setting sun giving me great colours , got some cracking images. Camped over night so waking up at 3am, although was painful at first, definitely worth it. Vibrant pink clouds all over the horizon. Was a bit nippy though, the wind definitely picked up through my 2 hours of sleep! I’ll dm you some of my images if you want on instagram so you can have a peak!
First Man Photography yeah landscapes, astro (hence wanting the 2.8) and some car stuff. Would love to see a comparison video of that and your F4. You're welcome to borrow it if you're ever around North Yorkshire again.
A very late post. The f4 lens has never had a lot of fans. However, I was able to pick up an excellent example second hand. Does all I need and maybe the 16- would give a little extra width at times, but in part, it comes down to what can be afforded. Not interested in the 2.8, you pay a premium for fast glass and I don't need fast glass for wide angle and landscape type shots.
I realize I am late to the party but thanks for the comparison. I did notice, though, your choice of 𝑓/16 which is going to suffer from being diffraction limited on the 5D Mark IV. At about 𝑓/10 you'll start to have problems. At 𝑓/8 (which I try to shoot at most of the time) diffraction isn't and issue. I have used the 16-35mm with the 5D Mark IV for a few years now with excellent results but recently bought an EOS R and the 15-35mm 𝑓/2.8L IS USM and while the lans is much bigger and heavier, the body is much smaller, so it's a wash. The IQ of that pair is fantastic. I am looking forward to the release of the "pro" R body to replace my 5D Mark IV which I love, but the mirrorless has been such a joy to work with I am ready to give up my beloved OVF and flappy mirror for it.
Interesting to hear your thoughts on the two lenses Adam. I've been thinking about the 16-35mm f2.8 but also considering the Samyang 14mm f2.8 to try some astrophotography.
Good test Adam and a fair real world comparison. The thing I like about lenses is that if you invest in a good lens you get many years of quality use without a new model coming out soon after purchase that is so much better. Unlike computers! Oh, did you notice you spelled purpo... Ha ha.
That's very true. They also hold their value amazingly well after an initial depreciation if buying new. I bought a lens second hand for a review a couple of years ago and sold it again afterwards for £50 more.
Great Review wish this video was made last month as i sold my 17-40 f4 for 340gbp and am missing it already going to buy 16-35f4 and 6d mk2 kit . The differences are so small that i dont think i would have sold it if i saw this before, even more so when I don't print my images yet, just online. As always great video and great subscribers on this channel. Cheers from sunny Malta.
I think the chatter was much for than the comparison. Improve on that and you would improve you’ve videos so much! You have great information in there.
Very good review/comparison between both lenses. Thanks for doing videos like this. They are all very helpful, specially when you need a good lens but your're in a budget.
Adam, I have then16-35 when I brought it just over a years ago the IS was the deciding factor for me as the IS is a real bonus when handheld for city scrapes which I do from time to time. I guess its about some ones personal budget, the 17-40 is a good Canon L lens
Yeah the 17-40 doesn't stop being a great lens. The IS was the clincher for me though too, mainly for video. I'd rather bump my ISO up than rely on IS for stills these days, that's just me though.
@@Firstmanphotography Being able to slow down the shutter and use IS to advantage for some water flow effect without needing tripod set up is great thou!
Interesting, I’m new around here, subbed due to Paul. When I went full frame I was in two minds as to which too buy, I’m so glad I went with the 17-40 as the image stabilisation is not an issue for me and the chromatic abberration is sorted in lightroom with a click of a button. I can now stop wondering, and I’ve saved a few quid, so, for me good news. Thanks for the comparison.
Yeah I think you're exactly right Terry. I've decided to keep the 16-35mm almost purely because of the IS which I only really use for video. If I wasnt doing video I'd definitely have stuck with the 17-40mm. We've had a lot of good years and created a lot together.
What a nice episode Adam. I first read: New Lens Vs Old Man ... but obviously, it was not. ;-) I really appreciate your occasional field tests and have to say, they cure me of some GAS as well. Certainly those new L lenses are very fine products, but that does not make the old ones bad (how many people may think as the quality of the last 10 years is already incredible) on perpese. And how much I envy you for your landscape in England ... that's what it is all about. Cannot be bought with all the money in the world.
If you don't own the 17-40 already, the increased sharpness and image stabilization in the 16-35 make it the obvious choice. This well done, but somewhat limited, comparison confirms many others already out there. Divided over, for example, a ten year period of ownership, the higher cost of the 16-35 becomes negligible. But the image quality benefits - particularly in handheld and video use - are not. Keep in mind too that in many cases the IS makes a tripod unnecessary, even in low light. A nice benefit for when you're trying to travel light.
Im in a dilemma....I recently bought canon 77d(apsc).. Im a hobbyist...Which is better sigma 18-35 or canon 17-55 f2.8 or any other standard zoom lens..My purpose is events and weddings(mostly indoor), travel, and portraits shooting. Image quality is key.....
Belter Adam! I’ve just gone to the dark side D750 and I’m desperately seeking my wide angle. So this was very interesting, albeit the other side of the canon fence. Makes no difference to me what brand, it’s still a very good, as always informative and enjoyable watch 😁👍
First Man Photography when I can I watch and it’s always professional and spot on entertainment. I eat breath photography and you make it effortless. I’ve been trying to edit and finish a vlog for over a week now 😂 hehehe
Hi Adam, I've watched your videos for a year or so now. I like what you do, your content is helpful and your YTube style is developing nicely. You look much more relaxed than a year ago. One thing though - I really think you should drop the "out" sign off. I know its different, but it just doesn't look natural and you style is strong enough not to need it. Nice review by the way.
I think the upgrade is worth it for the handling chromatic aberration, lack of distortion and the added benefit if image stabilization. Keeping sounds like a good choice to me.
I know this is an old video but maybe you will see this comment still. Firstly a very nice comparison, and beautiful area, I will definitely have to travel there some day. And secondly I just invested in one of these 17-40mm L lenses, and it cost me £280 in like new condition. What an absolute bargain. I’m hoping to shoot some sceneries with it soon, and get back into astrophotography, as my last wide angle was APSC only. Take care.
The 16-35mm is the lens I'm going for when I can afford it. I miss my wide angle lens when I upgraded to the MKIV last year from the 450D. Also want one to start taking architecture again
Good review. I do think these 'real world' comparisons are so much more worthwhile than the lab tests.
Thanks Ralph. That's kind of how I felt too. I hope it's true, they require a lot more time and effort to make than lab test.
While „real world“ comparisons are more on the subjective side, a lab test is an objective comparison/test. Both complement each other in making a decision, but neither is enough alone imo, for buying expensive glass.
Sorry to reply to such an old comment - but I agree. Seeing technical reviews, pixel peeking, diagrams and charts are helpful but can create mountains out of molehills. For most of us who probably fall into the pro-sumer or semi-pro or serious-hobbyist category, we're not printing our work on billboards or sides of box trucks and therefore the extra sharpness probably isn't enough to justify $400 extra. Likewise, if a job did come up where you did need that type of detail in something like a real-estate photo job or a landscape, you can digitally stitch the photos so you're only using the sharpest area of the photos to composite into one ultra sharp shot. IS is nice, but again - some of us need to count our coppers a little more closely than others, and unless I have a sudden windfall of cash sometime soon - looks like the 17-40 is on the menu for me.
I have been using the 17-40 for quite a few years now. I use it now on my Canon 5DSR, a very unforgiving , HIGH MP resolution. I have no issues what so ever with this lens. The "PIXEL PEEPERS" out there find fault in something in it anyway. I have printed large (1000mm wide) NO issues with prints. Contrast can be corrected in LR/PSCC. I can't justify the expense. Happy with the results from the 17-40mm. Good clean comparison Adam.
Picked up the 16-35 last week and haven’t taken it off my camera since being in Thailand. Got it with the m50 speedbooster and it’s amazing.
Adam, I really like these kinds of videos where equipment is tested in a real-life environment. It is far more meaningful than reading a ton os statics, graphs, and tables. Please keep up the good work! Thanks!
Thanks buddy. Glad you enjoyed it. The lab tests are fine but I want to share my real world experience of the gear. Mainly because that's what I am interested in hearing about from others.
Hi Adam, I switched from 17-40 to the 16-35 a few years back and been enjoying the lens since. I don't shoot much at F16 usually at larger apertures (F8-F11) and overall I'm very happy with my switch. I truly enjoy your videos - thanks for posting.
Most excellent real world comparison ! Have had the 17-40 for 5 years now when I went from crop ( 10-22 ) to full frame. Always liked the idea that you were one of the only landscape bloggers on the tube that used the 17-40. Have been struggling for a year or so now about switching but I was thinking if it's good enough for Adam it's good enough for me ! Now that you have gone to the 16-35 I may have to consider it more seriously.
Ha sorry Tom. The 17-40 is a great lens and it was really the IS for video that is the clincher for me.
The chromatic aberration can often be removed in post and it's the photographer that makes the picture, not the lens. Its definitely diminishing returns once you go beyond the 17-40mm too.
I did not watch the whole video but it seemed to me that you did not mention that the 16-35mm f2.8 comes in three different versions and they are totally different. So which version did you use?
Having changed from the 17-40l to the 16 35 f4 is recently after a year of thinking about it I'm gutted I didn't do it earlier, the difference is night and day. Corners on the older lens were horrific!!!
Hi Adam, I was just at this location about six weeks ago. I was hoping to photograph the shot that you have shown here but I thought that it was much firther away from the viaduct than it actually is. I actually walked out to the next ridge towards the viaduct not realizing that I was SO close. I did get a few good shots however and was rushed a bit by my with and son suffering a little bit of motion sickness as we drove through the Dales, down from Thwaite and the Lakes District. Truly an amazing part of the world and worthy of a return trip. We got home, to Canada, before the shut down of everything and are all healthy. I hope that you stay the same and are able to keep the videos coming during this challenging time.
Thanks for the review. I'd like to add that I've used both lenses many years (especially the 17-40/F4) but I was impressed by the improved sharpness of the 16-35/F4 at large apertures, especially in the corners. The IS makes it much easier to shoot at slow shutter speeds, when shooting off-tripod. I get sharp pictures at 1/8 sec! So I highly recommend the 16-35.
How do you find the vignetting on the 16-35? I've realised it's much worse than the 17-40mm.
I agree, vignetting of the 16-35 is worse (especially at 16mm/F4) but no problem for me because i usually shoot at F5.6 or F8.
Thanks. What do you say about the 16-36 f2,8 thirds version?
i see you was printing your photos how you did that please show me cause i want to start printing my pictures
Don't you use the lensprofiles? CA can be corrected also distorsion.
Of course. I just wanted to compare the raw performance of the lenses.
Not a bad comparison I all ready have the 16-35 I would like to know more about the 24-70 vs 24-105 I have both older ones want to upgrade but which do I upgrade and to what
why all the scenes are not graded in the same way?
Really well put together Adam!! Very interesting foreground! Them rocks looked amazing
Yeah ....it’s a stunning location. Thanks.
How about this corners in 17-40?I have read alot that 17-40 it is impossible to get sharp corners ???
Mine don't look like in the video. The corners I get look like smudges. Almost as if you are using a tilt shift lens
Hello. Can I use canon 16 35mm F4 to shoot portrait , low light and milky way ?
my camera doesn't have video and plus my camera is 14 years old it's a canon 400d 10.1 megapixel camera. i want to get an up to date camera that can do everything plus video. so what you think about the 10-18 wide angle lens. so you said this is a much better lens and it will make my pictures better i don't know i want to spend that kind of money on a camera lens but if it's going to make my pictures solid then i will have to invest in one. i love taking pictures especially wide angle ones but i want to buy 2 more cameras i want your opinion on the canon sl1 and sl2
Why did this pop up in my feed 2 years later?....
But it is very relevant as I’m looking at a used copy of the 17-40 (cheap too) I think I’ll go for it! Thanks
Really great video. What filter system are you using if any. Thanks
What a fabulous place! I suggest that you get a depth-of-field app and do some serious thinking about how the circle of confusion for f/16 relates to the pixel stride of your camera’s sensor. I think that f/16 is getting a bit too small for modern sensors, but you have to decide what will work for you. I find that what keeps making me choose one lens over another is chromatic aberration and flare, what Zeiss calls micro-contrast. I’ll bet you will really like your new lens. OSS is also important for sharpness.
I have a canon 80d and i use 50 1.8, i am thinking of getting this lens 16-35 f/4, i generally take family and friends photograph and very less landscape, could you please tell is this a right lens for me..
I remember a UA-camr going to the Ribble Head Viaduct and it was sheeting down with rain, I’ve forgotten who that was...? I have the 16-35 L f2.8 mkII, and I have to say it’s a lens I love but I wasted at least half the money I spent on it. A very good, fair and objective video, with an honest review.
Ha thanks Mark. I remember that day very well and think about it every time I go there now.
It seems to me to be hard to justify the price difference between the two when chromatic adoration and distortion can be corrected with two mouse clicks in PS, especially as I dont shoot video, so an eye opening and interesting comparison video.
i did same and i seeen diffrent on my canon 5DS, what camera are you using? biggest different is in how its handle highlights and sharpness in corners , in my case i keeept 16-35 f4
The extra 1mm from 17 to 16 is also worth mentioning. I used a Nikon 17-35 for years and lost count of the times I could just have done with been a tiny bit wider :)
Yeah thats a really good point. Sometimes moving the camera further back just isn't an option.
Another informative video Adam. Many thanks. I switched from my old 17-40 to this 16-35 lens after buying my first full frame DSLR. It may have been my copy of the older lens, but I was struck by how markedly better the 16-35 was in the corners in terms of sharpness. It was so obvious even on the back of the camera image when I did some test shots at the camera shop that I had little hesitation. Cheers - Paul
Sometimes some micro focus adjustment is required, although that shouldn’t be necessary. I’ve had the 17 to 40 for years but when I upgraded to the 5D Mark IV I saw a noticeable increase In sharpness from the exact same lens. I have no idea why.
I love my 17-40 lens. Unless you do astrophotography there is no need to have 2.8 for landscape photography. The 17-40 is a great lens for the money.
Yes, 17-40 is a great lens for the money. But 16-35 is a better one.
@@mikkirurk1 yeah I’m looking at the 16-35 F4L, it’s sharper in the corners and has IS.
Morning mate
Can You tell me How expensive is That printer what U got and paper with ink what is the cost, I mean what's the average prints on the tonners Compare to Cost
Thanks Have a good day
Hi Kamil. Check out my review - ua-cam.com/video/8icsJbVVHYE/v-deo.html
So better glass means better pictueres. Now momey not being a factor. Would buying the 16-35 mm make sence for a crop sensor DSLR like the Canon t7i. Ofcourse you'd be at a different focal length bc of the crop but would the quality of the fotos be better than if I were to go for a 10-22??
I just picked up a 17-40 in "excellent plus" condition, comes with caps, hood, and case. For just under $300. It would be nearly double that to get the 16-35 f4. For someone like me stretching dollars for my first L glass I happily used the savings to also afford a 24-105 f4. I'm very much looking forward to my new pair of budget tools.
Great comparison Adam. In all honesty for me, the difference is so negligible that the price is not worth it for me. I do have issues with people who say why haven't you got this bit of kit? why do you use that old lens? etc I use what I can afford,and let all the must have the latest gear brigade get on with it
Thanks Tim. The 17-40mm is still a great bit of kit. Besides, it's the photographer that makes the picture, not the lens.
Agree.. a photographer told me ur camera the 600D is not a pro one its such a bad camera and i was hurted at first.. but i love it and i enjoy taking pics with it always..
@@Firstmanphotography I guess I do have a very bad copy of the 17-40 The corners I get don't look like yours in the video. Mine look like smudges as if I am using a tilt shift lens. Only the middle is sharp
I picked up my 17-40 for $200 in mint condition. Couldn’t be happier. It is an excellent match with my new Canon R8. I think the whole boke (or bokeh, as some say) obsession is mostly irrelevant, but I notice that on 40mm there is a delightful softness or ‘fog’ to the background. With the light sensitive digital cameras of today, F4 is no issue at all. I started shooting Kodachrome and Ektachrome 135mm film back in the 1970s and getting enough exposure mattered much more than today, but with longer exposure times and a tripod, or a ‘bulb’ flash even, we managed somehow. To have the 17-40 F.4 is a real treat and I wish more photographers had the same appreciation of this quality lens as I have.
PS. I have never in my life been more pleased with any photos I took, than with my old Contax II with a Carl Zeiss lens from 1953 or thereabouts. I feel sorry for the many who are lost in a digital jungle of today. Back then, we put most if our attention on the subject matter and not on the equipment itself.
I am still using EF17-40 F4 for wedding or event photography until now.
Interesting comparison and an honest one at that. At present I am using the 17-40 and happy enough with that.
I was too Jim. There's no real reason not to be happy with it.
Interesting video. Two excellent lenses. I understand the rationale behind using identical photo editing but also see the counter argument that different tools have to be used differently.
My takeaway is that with good skills and technique either of these lenses are going to do the job but if you are chasing numbers and test scores the newer lens wins out
Good review. The 16-35mm is my usual landscape photography lens
The 17-40 mm is pretty good for such an old lens.
Just done a very similar exercise with my Nikon 24-85mm f3.5 VR versus the 24-70mm f2.8 and the picture quality differences are marginal. The big differences are size, weight, and cost. At the moment I am thinking the 24-70mm may be just too big and heavy for me but I need to do some more pixel peeping and some printing to be 100%. Nice variation on topic Adam well done.
Hey, great review. I’m planning to buy a wide angle lens, is the 17-40 for €350 used worth it, or should i buy a 16-35 for €800? I’m pretty confused... how big of a difference is the upgrade?
Hi Adam. Your videos are always engaging and informative. I'm a Nikon user so will probably never use either of these lenses but I always learn loads from you, so this is a must-see for me. It's a toss up between the two lenses for me but like any aspect of photography, it's personal choice that counts. Really enjoyed the comparison Adam. many thanks for sharing. P.S. great B-roll footage on the limestone pavement btw!
Thanks Tim. I've been keen to get back there with the drone. I just couldn't resist flying through. I know it's a Canon centric video but I wanted to provide some other parts to the video that would appeal to everyone. The new lens vs old lens is worth considering whenever we're on the verge of upgrading, and whatever system we use.
Great review, Adam. I was wrestling with this very choice last January. Finally spent the extra cabbage for the newer lens. IS was a factor. I'm very happy with it, especially since I had nothing in this focal range already. A real decision would be for current owners of the 17-40. It doesn't look like the 16-35 is enough better to justify a kit upgrade except for the well-heeled.
Yeah I agree. It would be tough to justify if it was just for stills. The IS was a big part of my decision to keep it. I'm also not interested in the extra weight of the 2.8 at this point.
Thank you for making this. Great comparison.
Thanks for the review. What happened when you compared the images after applying Lightroom's normal Lens & Chrom Ab corrections? - My guess is there would be nothing between the lenses. And if shooting RAW, why are slight differences in colour and contrast a concern?
How do they compare at f/4 mate?
Great review vlog Adam. Hats off to you for making an extremely fair compassion for each lens. Thanks for sharing.
"waiting for the clouds to clear" is what photography in the UK is all about :')
hey man.. was looking to get a 17-40 on a speed booster for my sonya6500.. but what an amazing place... could you let me know some tips on where to go at the yorkshire glades? Im actually coming to UK in June and will be in Bradford for about a week. thanks dude!
I remember back when I moved to full frame (6D + 24-105m L IS USM Kit) and I decided I'd put all my remaining money into one lens. I sided with the 16-35mm F/4 L IS USM and I'm very glad I did.
Good stuff. I'm looking forward to using it more. I owned the 24-105 in the past too. Its a massively underated lens and the focal range is extremely useful.
Just subbed! Nice info. What canon printer are you using?
Thanks. I use the Canon Pro 10s. Reckon its the best balance between quality and cost.
Hi there! I was wondering what made you skip on the F2.8 III?
AsianWithHat I would think as a landscape photographer who shoots at f8 or narrower, the extra stop of light doesn’t provide any extra benefit....
Great comparison and to the point, which I admire. You have a fan in New Jersey USA.!
Awesome thanks. I’ve got big love for my subscribers over the pond.
I have to say, I preferred the 17-40 image here.. I've never been overly happy with my 17-40, I think it's a soft one. I used to have a 10-22, which was so much sharper! Losing that lens is my only regret with upgrading from the 350D..
UA-cam doesn't always help with these videos with the compression. Have you tried micro focus adjustments in the settings? I had a Sigma 35mm ART lens and it turned a soft lens into a really sharp one.
Be quite happy with either results
Exactly.
Adam, have you done any astrophotography with the 16-35mm? This lens has everything speaking for it other than the speed, but I thought that with a bit of stacking, results might be usable.
So one more challenge for you as to which one is better. Using both lenses to shoot video, which one is better - it's no contest. Shooting videos is how the winning lens will sometimes be used. Now the winning lens for video has one small drawback, what is it?
Funny how I was about a mile away from you on one of the peaks called Pen-Y-Ghent also shooting the summer solstice, if only I knew you were at Ribblehead!
Ha yeah. How were things up there? Had all the clouds gone by sunset?
First Man Photography No it was amazing up there, got some nice cloud coverage over the setting sun giving me great colours , got some cracking images. Camped over night so waking up at 3am, although was painful at first, definitely worth it. Vibrant pink clouds all over the horizon. Was a bit nippy though, the wind definitely picked up through my 2 hours of sleep!
I’ll dm you some of my images if you want on instagram so you can have a peak!
I went for the 16-35mm f2.8 second hand from MPB for £650. Very very happy with it. Easily my favourite lens.
That's awesome. Do you use it for landscape photography?
First Man Photography yeah landscapes, astro (hence wanting the 2.8) and some car stuff. Would love to see a comparison video of that and your F4. You're welcome to borrow it if you're ever around North Yorkshire again.
Thanks. I appreciate that. Yeah the 2.8 makes sense for Astro. Not something I do much of.
A very late post. The f4 lens has never had a lot of fans. However, I was able to pick up an excellent example second hand.
Does all I need and maybe the 16- would give a little extra width at times, but in part, it comes down to what can be afforded. Not interested in the 2.8, you pay a premium for fast glass and I don't need fast glass for wide angle and landscape type shots.
Strong and unbiased review Adam. I love all your vlogs but I have to say this is First Man in his element when field testing in the Dales. Great work.
Thanks for the great video. I have the 17-40mm but switched over to Sony. I still use the canon lens on it.
Cool. I see a lot of people having success with the Canon lenses on the Sony cameras. What adapter do you use?
First Man Photography I'm using the Metabones. Most of my Canon lenses works fine on it.
I realize I am late to the party but thanks for the comparison. I did notice, though, your choice of 𝑓/16 which is going to suffer from being diffraction limited on the 5D Mark IV. At about 𝑓/10 you'll start to have problems. At 𝑓/8 (which I try to shoot at most of the time) diffraction isn't and issue.
I have used the 16-35mm with the 5D Mark IV for a few years now with excellent results but recently bought an EOS R and the 15-35mm 𝑓/2.8L IS USM and while the lans is much bigger and heavier, the body is much smaller, so it's a wash. The IQ of that pair is fantastic.
I am looking forward to the release of the "pro" R body to replace my 5D Mark IV which I love, but the mirrorless has been such a joy to work with I am ready to give up my beloved OVF and flappy mirror for it.
the bridge is forza??
Interesting to hear your thoughts on the two lenses Adam. I've been thinking about the 16-35mm f2.8 but also considering the Samyang 14mm f2.8 to try some astrophotography.
Good test Adam and a fair real world comparison. The thing I like about lenses is that if you invest in a good lens you get many years of quality use without a new model coming out soon after purchase that is so much better. Unlike computers! Oh, did you notice you spelled purpo... Ha ha.
That's very true. They also hold their value amazingly well after an initial depreciation if buying new. I bought a lens second hand for a review a couple of years ago and sold it again afterwards for £50 more.
Great Review wish this video was made last month as i sold my 17-40 f4 for 340gbp and am missing it already going to buy 16-35f4 and 6d mk2 kit . The differences are so small that i dont think i would have sold it if i saw this before, even more so when I don't print my images yet, just online. As always great video and great subscribers on this channel. Cheers from sunny Malta.
I think the chatter was much for than the comparison. Improve on that and you would improve you’ve videos so much! You have great information in there.
That's the same location James R Burns did his video, albeit in the rain, must be a popular spot for landscape photography :)
Very good review/comparison between both lenses. Thanks for doing videos like this. They are all very helpful, specially when you need a good lens but your're in a budget.
Adam, I have then16-35 when I brought it just over a years ago the IS was the deciding factor for me as the IS is a real bonus when handheld for city scrapes which I do from time to time.
I guess its about some ones personal budget, the 17-40 is a good Canon L lens
Yeah the 17-40 doesn't stop being a great lens. The IS was the clincher for me though too, mainly for video. I'd rather bump my ISO up than rely on IS for stills these days, that's just me though.
@@Firstmanphotography Being able to slow down the shutter and use IS to advantage for some water flow effect without needing tripod set up is great thou!
I love this man & every think in this video.
Interesting, I’m new around here, subbed due to Paul. When I went full frame I was in two minds as to which too buy, I’m so glad I went with the 17-40 as the image stabilisation is not an issue for me and the chromatic abberration is sorted in lightroom with a click of a button. I can now stop wondering, and I’ve saved a few quid, so, for me good news. Thanks for the comparison.
Yeah I think you're exactly right Terry. I've decided to keep the 16-35mm almost purely because of the IS which I only really use for video. If I wasnt doing video I'd definitely have stuck with the 17-40mm. We've had a lot of good years and created a lot together.
Very informative Adam, cheers
Cheers bud.
What a nice episode Adam.
I first read: New Lens Vs Old Man ... but obviously, it was not. ;-) I really appreciate your occasional field tests and have to say, they cure me of some GAS as well. Certainly those new L lenses are very fine products, but that does not make the old ones bad (how many people may think as the quality of the last 10 years is already incredible) on perpese.
And how much I envy you for your landscape in England ... that's what it is all about. Cannot be bought with all the money in the world.
If you don't own the 17-40 already, the increased sharpness and image stabilization in the 16-35 make it the obvious choice. This well done, but somewhat limited, comparison confirms many others already out there. Divided over, for example, a ten year period of ownership, the higher cost of the 16-35 becomes negligible. But the image quality benefits - particularly in handheld and video use - are not. Keep in mind too that in many cases the IS makes a tripod unnecessary, even in low light. A nice benefit for when you're trying to travel light.
Im in a dilemma....I recently bought canon 77d(apsc).. Im a hobbyist...Which is better sigma 18-35 or canon 17-55 f2.8 or any other standard zoom lens..My purpose is events and weddings(mostly indoor), travel, and portraits shooting. Image quality is key.....
Sigma is brighter and optically better, if you can accept it's weight it's better choice
@@groundhoppingwlkp3622 Thanks for ur reply...In fact I bought sigma 17-50 f2.8 due to a tight budget...
Great review really makes me want to get the 16-35 for sure
Belter Adam! I’ve just gone to the dark side D750 and I’m desperately seeking my wide angle. So this was very interesting, albeit the other side of the canon fence. Makes no difference to me what brand, it’s still a very good, as always informative and enjoyable watch 😁👍
Thanks buddy. Really appreciate your comment and support.
First Man Photography when I can I watch and it’s always professional and spot on entertainment. I eat breath photography and you make it effortless. I’ve been trying to edit and finish a vlog for over a week now 😂 hehehe
There's no doubt they take a lot of work and heartache.
I have a copy of the 16-35 F/4 and I love it.It is almost as sharp as my beloved 24-70 F/2.8
Excellent. I think my favourite lens is the 70-200 f2.8 is II, although I don't use it for landscapes, way too heavy.
I have a 70-200 F/4 nice and sharp and much lighter !
Hi Adam, I've watched your videos for a year or so now. I like what you do, your content is helpful and your YTube style is developing nicely. You look much more relaxed than a year ago. One thing though - I really think you should drop the "out" sign off. I know its different, but it just doesn't look natural and you style is strong enough not to need it. Nice review by the way.
Very nice video Adam love watching you work keep up the good work and try not to drop anything in the water please.
I think the upgrade is worth it for the handling chromatic aberration, lack of distortion and the added benefit if image stabilization. Keeping sounds like a good choice to me.
Great real world review Adam, have helped me make up my mind.... thanks and keep up the great reviews
Good video, thank you for sharing. BTW...... congratulations on the 6 - 1 against Panama.
Ha thanks buddy. I enjoyed that this afternoon.
Great job Adam - I have the 16-35 and love it!
Brilliant video and one of my favourite locations.
I know this is an old video but maybe you will see this comment still. Firstly a very nice comparison, and beautiful area, I will definitely have to travel there some day. And secondly I just invested in one of these 17-40mm L lenses, and it cost me £280 in like new condition. What an absolute bargain. I’m hoping to shoot some sceneries with it soon, and get back into astrophotography, as my last wide angle was APSC only. Take care.
amazing review Adam
Thanks buddy.
Great video and good comparison I don’t shoot cannon but still interesting and what a location thanks Adam 👍🤓
Thank you for the review it really helped me to decide between the two lenses!
Thank you sir. Very helpful.
The 16-35mm is the lens I'm going for when I can afford it. I miss my wide angle lens when I upgraded to the MKIV last year from the 450D. Also want one to start taking architecture again
Great video - thanks
Thanks Pete. Really appreciate it.
I dug the ent fraim.
Great review. I really enjoyed the comparisons!
Great video!! Thanks for the thorough comparison
Interesting take on this video. The 16-35mm is the next lens on my list. Thanks for sharing buddy
Thanks Diego, really appreciate the comment.
purchased my 17-40L years ago used, was very cheap and never had an issue with it. Its a bargain in my opinion
I agree wholeheartedly.
Great video Adam! Thanks for sharing it with us.😎👍JP