mdex73 0 Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) Will the 16-35 give me dramatically better results or slightly better than the 17-40. My wife is using a 5d mark3 in a Nauticam housing behind a Zen 230 dome? Edited July 26, 2013 by mdex73 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drew 0 Posted July 27, 2013 If you want quantifiable differences, I'd say it's in the 10-30% better in corners, especially on the wide end wide open, and about 5-10% better in overall resolution. It's significantly noticeable on some pics, not so big a difference in others. There's more distortion with the 17-40. If budget is an issue, you may wish to check out the Tokina 16-28. I really liked this lens @ 16mm. Corners were a bit sharper than the 16-35II throughout to F16. It has more CA and focused slower. Biggest problem was QC. I tested 3 copies before I found one that had consistent results. YMMV. Not a lens I'd buy online. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBarker 5 Posted July 28, 2013 Hi you may find the 16/28 from tokina very heavy I was looking at this lens but in the end got the 16/35 Nikon. Regards, Andy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdex73 0 Posted July 28, 2013 Is the canon 16-35 dramatically better than the 17-40? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cary Dean 3 Posted July 30, 2013 Is the canon 16-35 dramatically better than the 17-40? Both are great lenses. I've shot the 17-40 and own the 16-35 II. I wouldn't say dramatically better but slightly better. The advantage in my opinion (there are probably a few actually) is that you have more light to focus with with a native 2.8 lens than you do with an 4.0 which results in faster AF all other things being equal. I found the Zen 230 to be a great match for either lens with the correct port extension ring. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
