Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM versus Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM both mounted on Canon EOS 5D Mark III: Competitive performence
When compared against the $1,699 Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, the smaller, lighter f/4 model holds its own.
In fact the two perform at a similar level. The faster lens is a better performer at 35mm but the 17-40mm has more uniform sharpness across the field and marginally higher peak sharpness (albeit at different settings between them, and a difference of 1P-Mpix is trivial in real world terms).
The 16-35mm f/2.8L even has slightly higher levels of lateral chromatic aberration covering a larger area at its widest focal length, though levels are very low by 20mm. That’s quite an achievement although it’s worth remembering that the 16-35mm lens is both slightly wider and a stop faster (or just less when comparing Transmission).
Further readings for the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens review: Popular high-performance option
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
September 09, 2013
Canon’s current and undisputed king of wide-angle zooms is the 16-35 f/2.8 L II: it’s the best as far as image quality, build, and speed of glass are concerned. But what if you were on a bit more of a budget? You could stick with your camera’s kit lens (if it had one), though full-frame users start at about 24mm and almost every crop body kit lens are EF-S, meaning it won’t work with your full-frame camera if you choose to upgrade later on.
Read the article