Which is the better zoom lens?

[birbajans94]

So recently upgraded to a full frame camera, now I’m looking to add some glassware. I’ve been looking at the 17-40mm as well as the 16-35mm. My main question is what’s the major difference(if any)? As well which would you recommend for all around shooting?

[kvbarkley]

Which 16-35?

[MikeSowsun]

What lenses do you have now? Both the 17-40 and 16-35  are not really considered all around, general use, lenses. They are ultra wide angle lenses

For general use, most people go with a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom lens. 

[jrhoffman75]

---

@MikeSowsun wrote:

What lenses do you have now? Both the 17-40 and 16-35  are not really considered all around, general use, lenses. They are ultra wide angle lenses

For general use, most people go with a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom lens. 

---

Mike is correct.

If you are coming from a crop sensor camera it probably came with an 18-55 kit lens.

Remember that the crop sensor alters the field of view; an 18mm lens on a crop sensor camera ias equivalent to an almost 30mm lens on a full frame camera. Thus the 24-70/105 lens recommendation.

If you really want the 16/17mm coverage on the full frame body the 16-35mm f/4 is an outstanding lens.

[Russeli1941]

I have the 16-35 F4 L and have no complaints. I use it for landscape and Milky Way photos. The photos are clean & sharp with vibrant colours. I can't speak on the F2.8 as I have never used it.

[ebiggs1]

"I have the 16-35 F4 L and have no complaints."

I have the f2.8L not the f4 which I have never used. I admit I have just a single copy of the lens.  I have a couple friends that are not happy with theirs so I believe it is not a single case. I do have one friend that is totally happy with hers.  However, I sell photos and can not sell what my 16-35mil produces.

Canon makes the best lenses in the world. I only go for off brand for two reasons.  One Canon doesn't see fit to make the lens I want. Example the 150-600mm super zoom. And, two, the 16-35mm.  Some could throw the nominally high cost of most of Canon products as a good reason, too.

[jrhoffman75]

There are three versions of the 16-35mm f/2.8.

The "III" version is reported to be significantly better than the previous two.

[ebiggs1]

"The "III" version is reported to be significantly better than the previous two."

I certainly hope so. I have the II version. I replaced it with the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens.  I am not a Tokina lens fan but this lens is fantastic. It is my only Tokina and likely will be my only Tok.

[ebiggs1]

I call that a toss up. Nearly the same, you can get f2.8 with the 16-35mil. I have not checked recently but the 17-40mm is probably cheaper. It may not even be produced any more. There are guys here that check that stuff daily so somebody will know.

[ebiggs1]

Personally I wish I had my 17-40mil back. My 16-35mm f2.8L is the only Canon lens I have that was a disappointment.