But an investment of EUR 1,000 must be carefully considered, too, since I have already for some years 17-40 / f4.0 L USM Canon and thus am not entirely dissatisfied.
But the practical test has then convinced yet ...
I've tested both lenses a long weekend in different variations and environments and have come to the following decision:
- The biggest problem during 17-40 compared to 16-35 is the edge sharpness, which is much smaller at 17-40 (and not only in 150% magnification on the computer ;-)
- At 17-40 clearly lacks the IS, so I can easily retrieve the 16-35 or hold the camera steady even a diaphragm more. With photos just in buildings is worth because of the lack of basic brightness easy gold!
- Whether the 1 mm more or less fuel Next herausreisst everyone must know yourself, but the 16-35 is of course the newer, more current and better in my opinion cause broader objective of both.
My other thought was, why not the 16-35 / f2.8 L II USM and take replace the IS to a better start Aperture. The result of this test was a little disappointing ... because the photos from Aperture 2.8 and 4.0 with IS without IS were hardly distinguishable due to the small focal length. In the border areas I would even 16-35 / 4.0 L IS USM given the preference.
If then the price should play a role, the USM 16-35 / f2.8 L II has no chance!
So I've bought the after several tests and experiments 16-35 / f4.0 L IS USM, sold my 17-40 L USM and am finally more than happy and satisfied!
I can really only recommend to everyone the lens!
