Great review. There’s a couple of things I like a lot about the 17-40 4.0: (1) very balanced feel along with a Canon body, (2) low weight and size for carrying it everyday in my backpack, cause it’s a great focal length for street photography (all the other ultra wide Canon zooms are bigger and heavier), and (3) this lens distortion is super cool for creating dynamics at wide angles. I’m keeping it.
Yes, that is a friend's lens, he's got that thing for blacking out all colors, logos etc. 😀 This review was waiting to be edited even before I started working in the camera store.
My 17-40 is pretty soft on my 7D Mark II as well on the edges and corners. Best is to choose f11 on APS-C. On Full Frame f14 and f16 are sharpest in the corners on my copy. Now it’s on eBay and I’m very very happy with my new 16-35 f4
Odlicni opisi , uzeo sam 5D classic mislim da je bio tvoj opis isto , i sad gledam da uzmem neki objektiv , imam yongnuo 50 1.8, ok za svakodnevno slikanje , al kvalitet slike nije nesto . Koji bi mi preporucio objektiv za najklasicnije kit objektiv primene , imajuci budzet na umu . Nisam profesionalni fotograf porodicno samo pa 1000evra ne dolazi u obzir za sada .
Appreciate the HONEST REVIEWS! I like the way you review lenses by using them the way most people use them and that's to take pictures. I love photography, I love my Canon 70D, 6D and 5Ds and my lenses are the 35 f/2 IS, 40 f/2.8 STM, 50 f/1.8 STM, 85 f/1.8 USM. 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/4 and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. I buy gear on a tight budget and over a long period of time and use them forever. Is the 16-35 better than the 17-40? After watching this review it obviously is, but is it so much better that I need to replace my 17-40? Probably not, most of my photography is done with my 35 f/2 IS and 24-105 f/4L IS with either the 6D or 5Ds. The 5Ds is a recent purchase, Canon discounted it to $1299 and I lusted after one for years but could never afford it but at that price I bought it. In a few years I'll make the transition to the R5 but until then it's EF lenses like the 17-40 and my older EF bodies. If you don't do video do you really need a mirrorless body? Something you have to remember is the 16-35 is 11 years newer with better optical technology incorporated in the lens which translates to a better lens. I'd be very disappointed if the 16-35 wasn't better than the 17-40 in every way.
Seriously great review man! Quick and to the point with great facts and examples. Keep it up! Made sure to use your link, hope it worked and gave you some cash so you can keep doing more of these.
DANG! Thanks for this breakdown bud. I've been struggling on deciding if its worth buying the new Canon 14-35 f4 L lens for my EOS R. I've been rocking the 24-105 f4 L lens and its great, but I still need that extra ULTRA WIDE angle for mainly my golf vlogs and vlogging. Nice vid man, helps a ton!
Great review, thanks! I have had my eye on the 17-40 for a while but was concerned about my 2 late model 5D sensors outresolving it. I have my eye on an EOS 1V though and I am sure it will perform brillantly on a 5D1…
This is a get what you pay for situation. Also, the 17-40 is an older lens that has undergone no updates. That said, the 17-40 performs reasonably well.
In my country (Bulgaria) the difference is less than 250 euro. If buying new, I see no reason to even consider the 17-40. P.S. as an addition, you can test how much noise they make when focusing. With modern cameras having such nice video features....
Excellent video. What is up with the L series lens without a red ring? I picked up an older 17-35 f/2.8L USM and it is still my favorite lens. Given the choice between the 16-35 and the 17-40, I would choose the 16-35 because of the image quality and the IS. As for gell filters, my 17-35 has the behind the lens holder. Only reason I haven't used them was because I couldn't find them. I recently found some on line and will be checking it out.
I am trying to go from a 17-40 that I use for landscapes to some sort of Prime ( 17 - 28 ). I would be very interested to hear what primes you are using. Thanks.
Very nice video and useful information, Please could you guide, I am stuck between 17-40mm and 16-35mm, I want to use it with canon 5d iv,..whihc one will give better performance with this full-frame camera?
Really great test, thanks! 17-40 seems more punchy, more 3D yo my eyes, thanks perhaps to its lower element count, and its whites are clean and properly white whereas the 16-35 seems to have a red or magenta tint (most visible in whites). If I had an 80D I'd go for the 17-40 in a heartbeat as the horrible corner CA and the vignetting would probably be excluded from the APS-C sensor area, making a great 27-64mm zoom ;)
Mam obydwa i na minus 16-35 vs starszej 17-40 to 16- 35 ma winietowanie, dystorsje i żenujące odblaski jak i gorszą ostrość no sorry ale przepłaciłem za jedną działkę dwukrotnie... bez jaj ale dałem się nabić w butelkę
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Great review. There’s a couple of things I like a lot about the 17-40 4.0: (1) very balanced feel along with a Canon body, (2) low weight and size for carrying it everyday in my backpack, cause it’s a great focal length for street photography (all the other ultra wide Canon zooms are bigger and heavier), and (3) this lens distortion is super cool for creating dynamics at wide angles. I’m keeping it.
I love your informative and to the point reviews! Thank you!
The 17-40 is incredible, still relevant in 2024!
The blacked out red ring confused me at first 😂
Yes, that is a friend's lens, he's got that thing for blacking out all colors, logos etc. 😀 This review was waiting to be edited even before I started working in the camera store.
I do the same! Don’t need anyone eyeing my L lenses 😂
Skvělé, takhle by měla vypadat recenze! Tohle je asi 20té video které jsem viděl a teprve tohle mně přesvědčilo abych vzal 16 - 35, děkuji!
I'm glad you came back.
Fantastic fact based review of crucial features of both lenses, thank you, you've helped me make my mind up - albeit I'll buy second hand.
My 17-40 is pretty soft on my 7D Mark II as well on the edges and corners. Best is to choose f11 on APS-C. On Full Frame f14 and f16 are sharpest in the corners on my copy. Now it’s on eBay and I’m very very happy with my new 16-35 f4
excelente revision de los lentes
clara , sencilla y con punto de vista !!!
gracias
Man, I'm debating either this lens or the Canon 10-18mm for my Canon EOS R. Great vid bud.
Odlicni opisi , uzeo sam 5D classic mislim da je bio tvoj opis isto , i sad gledam da uzmem neki objektiv , imam yongnuo 50 1.8, ok za svakodnevno slikanje , al kvalitet slike nije nesto .
Koji bi mi preporucio objektiv za najklasicnije kit objektiv primene , imajuci budzet na umu . Nisam profesionalni fotograf porodicno samo pa 1000evra ne dolazi u obzir za sada .
Thank you - well informed, logical, and straightforward review
Appreciate the HONEST REVIEWS! I like the way you review lenses by using them the way most people use them and that's to take pictures. I love photography, I love my Canon 70D, 6D and 5Ds and my lenses are the 35 f/2 IS, 40 f/2.8 STM, 50 f/1.8 STM, 85 f/1.8 USM. 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/4 and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. I buy gear on a tight budget and over a long period of time and use them forever. Is the 16-35 better than the 17-40? After watching this review it obviously is, but is it so much better that I need to replace my 17-40? Probably not, most of my photography is done with my 35 f/2 IS and 24-105 f/4L IS with either the 6D or 5Ds. The 5Ds is a recent purchase, Canon discounted it to $1299 and I lusted after one for years but could never afford it but at that price I bought it. In a few years I'll make the transition to the R5 but until then it's EF lenses like the 17-40 and my older EF bodies. If you don't do video do you really need a mirrorless body? Something you have to remember is the 16-35 is 11 years newer with better optical technology incorporated in the lens which translates to a better lens. I'd be very disappointed if the 16-35 wasn't better than the 17-40 in every way.
Super! Pozdrav iz NY. Hvala ti za video. Naručio sam 16-35mm
Seriously great review man! Quick and to the point with great facts and examples. Keep it up! Made sure to use your link, hope it worked and gave you some cash so you can keep doing more of these.
Much appreciated!
DANG! Thanks for this breakdown bud. I've been struggling on deciding if its worth buying the new Canon 14-35 f4 L lens for my EOS R. I've been rocking the 24-105 f4 L lens and its great, but I still need that extra ULTRA WIDE angle for mainly my golf vlogs and vlogging. Nice vid man, helps a ton!
Did you buy one yet?
Great review, thanks! I have had my eye on the 17-40 for a while but was concerned about my 2 late model 5D sensors outresolving it. I have my eye on an EOS 1V though and I am sure it will perform brillantly on a 5D1…
This was very helpful. Thank you, sir!
Very good review! Thanks!
Just found your channel.
Very nice reviews and very informative.
Well done
And thank you for all the help and information provided
Thanks and welcome
Excellent review. Thank you.
best video of these lenses. thank you!!
Excellent review! Very helpful. Thank you!
Good review 👍
This is a get what you pay for situation. Also, the 17-40 is an older lens that has undergone no updates. That said, the 17-40 performs reasonably well.
bravo, good job and precise.
Thank you! That was an excellent video
excellent video
Thanks for the review. Howcome you covered the 16-35 in black tape?
That was a friends lens... some photographers have a habit to cover all markings with black tape to make in "brandless"
In my country (Bulgaria) the difference is less than 250 euro. If buying new, I see no reason to even consider the 17-40.
P.S. as an addition, you can test how much noise they make when focusing. With modern cameras having such nice video features....
Very informative and detailed. Thank you!
Excellent video. What is up with the L series lens without a red ring? I picked up an older 17-35 f/2.8L USM and it is still my favorite lens. Given the choice between the 16-35 and the 17-40, I would choose the 16-35 because of the image quality and the IS. As for gell filters, my 17-35 has the behind the lens holder. Only reason I haven't used them was because I couldn't find them. I recently found some on line and will be checking it out.
That was a friends lens who's got that thing for all blacked out gear... no brand names, red rings etc. :)
Legenda se vratila!😁
Hello, I do real estate photography and I use 17-40 f4. Do you think that it is worth it to switch to 16-35 ? Is that 1mm visible or not really ?
Pozdrowienia z Polski. Greetings from Poland. Very good, practical and not emotional (aka ADHD) comparison. Thanks
perfect reviewed
nice review. thank you
what better Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L or canon 16-35mm f2.8 ii?
Why is not any examples in raw?
How did you wrap the 16-35mm? The whole lens seems to be covered in the black wrap. Great review!
That's a friends lens, he's got that thing for blacked out gear... :)
@@Camerahoarders Did he also wrap his white long lenses? :)
What about stabilization ? Does it makes any difference ??
I am trying to go from a 17-40 that I use for landscapes to some sort of Prime ( 17 - 28 ). I would be very interested to hear what primes you are using. Thanks.
In this range I have 24mm 2.8 IS. Underestimated lens.
Great comparison! Greetings from Russia! :)
I used canon 200d mark 2 and i do vlogging...please suggest me best lens.......india
Very nice video and useful information, Please could you guide, I am stuck between 17-40mm and 16-35mm, I want to use it with canon 5d iv,..whihc one will give better performance with this full-frame camera?
Had same situation, 17-40 is nice lens specily with mark 4, those extra pixels will uplift the image
Really great test, thanks! 17-40 seems more punchy, more 3D yo my eyes, thanks perhaps to its lower element count, and its whites are clean and properly white whereas the 16-35 seems to have a red or magenta tint (most visible in whites). If I had an 80D I'd go for the 17-40 in a heartbeat as the horrible corner CA and the vignetting would probably be excluded from the APS-C sensor area, making a great 27-64mm zoom ;)
thank you that make me more good choice
which would you recommend for video?
16-35
عليا الطلاق مصري 😂😂😂 عمتا لو مصري يبقي عاش 😁😁😁😁
Mam obydwa i na minus 16-35 vs starszej 17-40 to 16- 35 ma winietowanie, dystorsje i żenujące odblaski jak i gorszą ostrość no sorry ale przepłaciłem za jedną działkę dwukrotnie... bez jaj ale dałem się nabić w butelkę
Prvi \o/
Prvi dobije keks.
@@Camerahoarders Primam Domacica kekse na adresu u Clongriffinu!