Canon 16-35 f2.8L II vs 17-40 f4L vs Olympus OM Zuiko 24.

A little while back I borrowed a 16-35 f2.8L v2 from Canon Professional Services, so that I could make a direct comparison against my own 17-40 F4L.

At the time I was looking for the Holy Grail of wide angles for my landscape work, even though my 17-40 was doing OK. The 16-35 was a new model so thought it was worth checking out. Here is what I found……

Part 1: Lens Flare Comparison

Both lenses produced flare in extreme circumstances, but as you can see from the following images, it was the 17-40 that controlled flare the best.

Flare aside, it should be noted that the 16-35's circular iris produces a great star effect around the sun. The 17-40 is no slouch in the area and is often praised for it's great looking specular highlights, but 16-35 trumps it here!

Canon 16-35 @ 16mm f16:


Canon 17-40 @ 17mm f16:


As much as I love the sun's star effect (pun intended) in the 16-35's image, the 17-40's sun is perfectly acceptable (and not really on test here), so when considering 'flare only' I gotta give the thumbs up to the 17-40.

Part 2: Focal Length 24mm

"Why test at 24mm?" I hear you say. This is so I can make a direct comparison with my Olympus OM Zuiko 24mm 2.8 that I use for a few of my landscapes. I have long held this lens up as a stand out resolver, so if this new lens can out-resolve the Oly I will be in heaven!

Detail Crops: These are small sections from the full image (seen below in the distortion test) at 100% native size.....

Canon 16-35:


Canon 17-40:


Olympus OM Zuiko 24/2.8:


From these crops it is neck and neck between the 16-35 and 17-40, with the edge just going to the Oly. The difference between these is minimal and could easily be levelled out by using a little USM.

Corner Crops:

Canon 16-35:


Canon 17-40:


Olympus OM Zuiko 24/2.8:


In the corners it's a different matter, with the Oly being King, while the 17-40 is a way behind in second and the 16-35 behind that. (This result was the same for all four corners)

Distortion:

Well this is where I expect the Oly 24mm to lead.....

Canon 16-35:


Canon 17-40:


Olympus OM Zuiko 24/2.8:


Well a bit of a surprise with this one..... the 16-35 shows pincushion distortion, while both the 17-40 and Oly 24 show barrel distortion. While none of them are "bad" in my opinion (remember this is 24mm), I would have to give the gong (just) to the 17-40 over the Oly 24 in this case.

Well that's 24mm and I think that the tiny Olympus 24mm wins overall here. The other lenses put up a good fight in detail and distortion, but the Oly trumps them with it's outstanding corner performance and that is the main area in which I am seeking improvement.

So it looks like the Oly stays in my kit for a little while longer..... but how will the Canon lenses stack up at the super wide angles of 16 & 17mm? Will they come into their own and give me the corner performance of the Oly, or do I need to start rethinking my compositions and shoot at 24mm for all of my landscapes?

Part 3: Wide Angle

Let's see how the 16-35 and 17-40 compare at their widest angles.

First up the overall images and distortion.

Canon 16-35 @ 16mm f16:


Canon 17-40 @ 17mm f16:


Barrel distortion is present in both lenses at these wide FOVs (no surprise there), with the 17-40 displaying slightly less. I guess this is to be expected with the 1mm wider FOV of the 16-35, so for distortion I would be happy go with no clear winner.

Corner Crops:

Canon 16-35 @ 16mm f16


Canon 17 - 40 @ 17mm f16


Both lenses display a little red fringing in the contrast area where shadow meets sun, but it is the 17-40 that has the edge in sharpness here.

Canon 16-35 @ 16mm f16


Canon 17 - 40 @ 17mm f16


In the bottom corners the tables have been turned however, with the 16-35 now having the edge in sharpness.

So once again I believe that there is no real winner here and the turn about in form from top to bottom corners, is most likely be due to a slight variation in focus distance.

Middle Crops:

Canon 16-35 @ 16mm f16


Canon 17 - 40 @ 17mm f16


Well you could throw a blanket over these they are so close..... no clear winner... again!

Part 4: The Long End

Until now I have been dealing with the wide FOVs of these lenses, this is primarily because it's where I am seeking improvement in my current lens line-up.

The wide images displayed have been focused using hyperfocal methods, so as to maximise the DOF from as close to the camera as possible and out to infinity. Again this is because it's the area in which I am seeking improvement (...I like to shoot wide angle landscapes if you haven't noticed )

Once we hit the long end of these lenses however, we cannot expect to achieve the huge DOF that the wider angles offer. So in the following images I have focused on the building and will display corner crops from the building only and not from the foreground grass. This will effectively display the lenses "flat field" performance in the corners, as all the area of the building should remain within the plain of focus.

First the full images displaying the difference in FOV between 35 and 40mm.....

Canon 16-35 @ 35mm f16:


Canon 17-40 @ 40mm f16:


As you can see, 5mm makes a considerable difference in FOV. Both lenses display only slight curvilinear distorion.

Middle Crops:

Canon 16-35 @ 35mm f16:


Canon 17-40 @ 40mm f16:


Not much in this, but I gotta give sharpness and detail to the 17-40. This may be due to a slight difference in focus distance, or perhaps the fact that the longer focal length is taking us just a tad closer and this is allowing more pixels to render the fine detail.

So I guess the 5mm difference in focal length does make for a bit of an unfair comparison, but I am still glad that I own the 17-40.

Corner Crops:

Canon 16-35 @ 35mm f16:


Canon 17-40 @ 40mm f16:


Again, there is very little in this. I think the fine detail of the brick is rendered better in the 17-40 image, but once again the 5mm advantage must be considered here.

Please note that the left corner images display the same results, so I won't waste bandwidth and display them here.

Part 5: Wider Apertures & Longer Focal Lengths

So how do these lenses go at the wider apertures? These first images display the light fall-off experienced at wide open apertures.

Canon 16-35 @ 35mm f2.8


Canon 16-35 @ 35mm f4


Canon 17-40 @ 40mm f4


Both lenses display light falloff when wide open, but here you can see that the 16-35 at f4 is already minimising the falloff and is way better than the 17-40. In fact, the 17-40 does not get as good as this until it reaches f8.

Crops:

Canon 16-35 @ 35mm f2.8


Canon 16-35 @ 35mm f4


Canon 17-40 @ 40mm f4


Both lenses are stellar performers in the middle when wide open..... no clear winner here.

Corner Crops:

Canon 16-35 @ 35mm f2.8


Canon 16-35 @ 35mm f4


Canon 17-40 @ 40mm f4


No contest !! The 16-35 beats the 17-40 in the corners when wide open without question. The 16-35 provided much better results than the 17-40 at the sides when wide open also. The 17-40 is quite soft, while the 16-35's edge performance is only marginally less than the middle.

Up until now things have been going pretty well all the 17-40's way, but now that we are looking at the wide apertures it's a different story.

The Low Down

If you are trying to make up your mind between the two lenses, I guess you should ask yourself what you intend to use it for. If you are a landscaper like me and never venture toward the wider apertures, then the 17-40 would be just fine.

But if you are a wedding/portrait person, who regularly shoots at wider apertures in dark locations (churches etc) then perhaps the 16-35 is the way to go.

Another thing to consider that is not shown in these tests, is AF speed and accuracy. Being a 2.8 lens the 16-35 will allow the camera's cross type AF sensors to be use to their full potential (ie sensitive to both horizontal and vertical areas of contrast), while the 17-40 f4 will limit these to horizontal sensitivity only.

This is no biggee to a landscaper, but I think a sports shooter would want to go the 2.8 for sure. As would the low light photographer, as true cross type sensors would aid low light focusing greatly.

Cheers

Rusty
AustralianLight - Landscape Photography

UPDATE: Since making this comparison I have been using a Canon 24mm TS-E Tilt/Shift lens. While I have no direct image/crop comparisons to post here, I have to say that it makes these 3 lenses look like toys.

I have not used the 17mm TS-E myself, but from all reports it too is amazing lens and on par with the 24 TS-E. So if you are like me and ultimate image quality is more important than zoom, then the TS-E lenses should be considered also.

Check out these lenses at the following providers:








Tags: canon 17-40 f4 l canon 16-35 f2.8 l II olympus om zuiko 24mm 2.8 lens test review comparison image samples