posted on Mar 5, 2010 at 10:59AM
Head-2-Head Lens Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM vs. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
ConclusionBy Ted Dillard
This is a very clear case of getting a very little bit more for a great deal more money. The 16-35mm f/2.8 is a slightly bigger lens, it’s a tad heavier, and it’s almost twice the money. Take a look at the comparisons in the f/4.0- 4.5 shots of both lenses. At wide open, the slower lens is clearly a better performer, but at f/4 and f/4.5, the lenses deliver very similar results.
In terms of sheer output and performance, they’re arguably on equal footing. In terms of speed, obviously, you’re getting one more f-stop out of the 16-35mm f/2.8, and frankly, that’s about all you’re getting. Is it worth it? Of course, if you need that extra light. If not, then save your money.
What's you take on the better Canon wide-angle lens? Check out our interactive Head-to-Head Comparison Card and let us know what you think!