Canon 17-35 2.8 Vs 17-40 F4: Which Lens Dominates?

Hey friends, let’s talk about a lens comparison that’s been on my mind: the Canon 17-35 2.8 Vs 17-40 F4. As a seasoned photographer who loves wide-angle shots, I’ve used both extensively. I’m excited to share my experiences to help you pick the right lens for your style.

These L-series lenses are both fantastic but serve different purposes. The 17-35 f/2.8 shines in low light with its wider aperture, creating beautiful bokeh. The 17-40 f/4, being lighter, is perfect for travel and landscapes. Let’s dive into the details.

Canon 17-35 2.8 Vs 17-40 F4 Comparison

Aperture: The Game-Changer

The biggest difference is the aperture. The 17-35 f/2.8 has a constant f/2.8, letting in twice as much light as the 17-40 f/4’s constant f/4. This makes the 17-35 ideal for low-light conditions like indoor events or concerts.

I once shot a wedding reception in a dimly lit ballroom. The 17-35 f/2.8 captured sharp images of dancers without pushing ISO too high, avoiding grainy results. The 17-40 f/4 would’ve needed ISO 3200, introducing noise.

The f/2.8 aperture also allows a shallower depth of field, perfect for isolating subjects in wide shots. For example, shooting a portrait at 35mm, I can blur the background, adding drama. The 17-40 f/4, while sharp, offers less bokeh control, better suited for scenes needing full focus.

Modern cameras handle high ISO well, so the 17-40 f/4 remains viable in moderate low light. Still, for ultimate flexibility, the 17-35 f/2.8’s extra stop is a lifesaver.

Build Quality and Durability

Both lenses are L-series, built to withstand tough conditions. The 17-35 f/2.8 boasts a “Pro” build with metal filter threads, adding durability for rugged shoots. It weighs 534g, slightly heavier than the 17-40 f/4’s 474g, but the difference feels minor.

The 17-40 f/4 has a “Near Pro” build with plastic filter threads, which are lighter but less robust. Both feature weather sealing, so I’ve used them in rain and snow without worry. Their zoom rings are smooth, and the construction feels solid.

I’ve hiked with both in dusty trails, and they held up perfectly. The 17-35 f/2.8’s metal threads give me extra confidence in harsh environments, but the 17-40 f/4’s lighter weight is a bonus for long treks.

Image Quality and Sharpness

Both lenses deliver stellar image quality, as expected from Canon’s L-series. Center sharpness is excellent for both, but the 17-40 f/4 edges out slightly in corner sharpness, rated “Very good” versus the 17-35 f/2.8’s “Good.” This makes the 17-40 ideal for landscapes, where corner-to-corner clarity is key.

In my tests, the 17-40 f/4’s corners were noticeably sharper at f/4, especially for large prints. The 17-35 f/2.8 improves when stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, closing the gap. For most uses, the difference is subtle unless you’re pixel-peeping.

Both exhibit distortion—barrel at 17mm and pincushion at longer focal lengths. Modern Canon cameras correct this in-camera, ensuring straight lines for architecture. The 17-40 f/4’s advanced optics, with three aspherical elements and one Super UD element, reduce chromatic aberration better than the 17-35 f/2.8’s two aspherical elements.

Vignetting is minimal with both, especially with in-camera corrections enabled. I’ve shot sunsets with no noticeable darkening in corners, thanks to their multi-layer coatings.

Optical Design and Construction

The 17-40 f/4’s optical design is more advanced, with 12 elements in 9 groups, including three aspherical elements and one Super UD element. This contributes to its superior corner sharpness and reduced aberrations. The 17-35 f/2.8 uses 15 elements in 10 groups, with two aspherical elements, optimized for low-light performance.

The Super UD element in the 17-40 f/4 minimizes color fringing, especially at 17mm, where the 17-35 f/2.8 shows slight fringes in high-contrast scenes. Both lenses balance sharpness and contrast well, but the 17-40 f/4’s design reflects newer technology.

I’ve noticed the 17-40 f/4’s colors pop slightly more in daylight, likely due to its UD glass. For night shots, the 17-35 f/2.8’s wider aperture compensates for any optical differences.

Autofocus Performance

Both lenses use Canon’s ring-type USM for fast, quiet autofocus. They lock focus quickly, even in low light, though the 17-35 f/2.8 has a slight edge in dim conditions due to its wider aperture. Full-time manual focus override is a boon for fine-tuning.

At a fast-paced event, I’ve relied on both for quick focus on moving subjects. The autofocus is nearly silent, ideal for video. Minimal focus breathing ensures consistent framing during video pulls.

The 17-35 f/2.8’s leisurely autofocus, as noted by Ken Rockwell, is still accurate, especially on modern bodies like the 5D Mark III. The 17-40 f/4 matches it in most scenarios, making both reliable for dynamic shoots.

Minimum Focus Distance and Magnification

The 17-40 f/4 focuses closer at 0.28m versus the 17-35 f/2.8’s 0.42m. This makes the 17-40 better for close-ups or tight spaces. Its maximum magnification is 0.25x, compared to the 17-35’s 0.11x, allowing larger reproductions of small subjects.

I’ve shot flowers with the 17-40 f/4, filling the frame with vibrant details. In cramped interiors, its closer focus distance is a lifesaver. The 17-35 f/2.8 is less versatile here but still capable for general wide-angle work.

Filter Compatibility

Both accept 77mm filters, standard for L-series lenses. The 17-35 f/2.8’s unique drop-in gelatin filter holder allows stacking filters for creative effects, like neutral density or color grading. I’ve used this for black-and-white landscapes without vignetting.

The 17-40 f/4 relies on screw-in filters, which can be less convenient for stacking. Its plastic filter threads are functional but less durable than the 17-35’s metal ones. For filter-heavy shooters, the 17-35 f/2.8 offers more flexibility.

Flare Resistance

Both lenses feature multi-layer coatings to combat flare and ghosting. Shooting toward the sun with hoods attached, I’ve seen minimal flaring. The 17-35 f/2.8 may show slight flare at f/2.8, but stopping down eliminates it.

In a sunrise shoot, both maintained contrast and clarity. The 17-40 f/4’s coatings seem slightly more effective, but the difference is negligible with proper technique. These lenses handle backlighting well, making them great for dramatic lighting.

Real-World Performance

In low-light scenarios, the 17-35 f/2.8 is a game-changer. Shooting a concert, its f/2.8 aperture let me use faster shutter speeds, capturing performers sharply without noise. The 17-40 f/4, while capable, required higher ISO, slightly compromising quality.

For landscapes, the 17-40 f/4’s sharpness and lighter weight shine. On a hike, I carried it all day without fatigue, and its corner sharpness ensured every detail was crisp. The 17-35 f/2.8, though heavier, excels in creative shots, like isolating a subject against a blurred background.

In video, the 17-40 f/4’s lighter build is easier on gimbals, but the 17-35 f/2.8’s aperture offers cinematic depth. Both have minimal focus breathing, ideal for smooth focus pulls.

Use Case Recommendations

When comparing the Canon 17-35 2.8 Vs 17-40 F4, your style matters. The 17-35 f/2.8 is perfect for low-light genres like weddings, events, or astrophotography. Its f/2.8 aperture offers creative control, ideal for portraits or street photography with blurred backgrounds.

The 17-40 f/4 suits landscape, travel, or architectural photographers who stop down to f/8 or f/11 for maximum depth. Its lighter weight and sharper corners make it a go-to for outdoor adventures. For video, the 17-40’s portability aids handheld or gimbal work, while both lenses perform well.

I’ve used the 17-35 f/2.8 for indoor events, where its aperture saved the day. For landscapes, the 17-40 f/4’s clarity and ease of carry are unbeatable.

Comparison Table

Here’s a detailed comparison:

Feature	Canon 17-35 f/2.8	Canon 17-40 f/4
Maximum Aperture	f/2.8	f/4
Weight	534g	474g
Length	96mm	97mm
Filter Size	77mm (Metal)	77mm (Plastic)
Build Quality	Pro	Near Pro
Center Sharpness	Excellent	Excellent
Corner Sharpness	Good	Very good
Autofocus	USM	USM
Minimum Focus Distance	0.42m	0.28m
Maximum Magnification	0.11x	0.25x
Lens Construction	15 elements/10 groups	12 elements/9 groups

Decision-Making: Which Lens to Choose?

Choosing between the Canon 17-35 2.8 Vs 17-40 F4 hinges on your needs. If low-light performance or creative bokeh is key, the 17-35 f/2.8 is your pick. It’s ideal for events, portraits, or indoor shots where light is limited.

For landscapes, travel, or video, the 17-40 f/4’s lighter weight and sharper corners shine. Its closer focus distance suits macro-style shots. Ask yourself:

• Do you shoot in low light often? Choose the 17-35 f/2.8.
• Need a lighter lens for travel? Go for the 17-40 f/4.
• Is corner sharpness critical? The 17-40 f/4 excels.
• Need close-up capability? The 17-40 f/4 focuses closer.

Both are discontinued, so check the used market. Their performance remains top-notch, offering great value.

Final Thoughts

Both the Canon 17-35 f/2.8 and 17-40 f/4 are stellar L-series lenses with unique strengths. The 17-35 f/2.8 excels in low light and creative photography, while the 17-40 f/4 is perfect for landscapes and travel. Your choice depends on your priorities—versatility or portability. Happy shooting!

FAQ

Can these lenses be used on crop sensor cameras?
Yes, both work on APS-C cameras, offering a 27.2-56mm (17-35) or 27.2-64mm (17-40) equivalent focal length.

How do these compare to third-party alternatives?
Lenses like Sigma’s 14-24mm f/2.8 are excellent, but Canon’s L-series offers superior build and integration with Canon bodies.

Is there a significant build quality difference?
Both are L-series with robust builds. The 17-35 f/2.8’s metal filter threads are more durable, but the 17-40 f/4’s plastic threads are still reliable.

Which is better for video?
The 17-40 f/4’s lighter weight suits gimbals, but the 17-35 f/2.8’s aperture Both have quiet autofocus and minimal focus breathing.

Are these lenses worth buying since they’re discontinued?
Yes, both remain excellent choices, especially in the used market, offering professional-grade performance.

How do they handle astrophotography?
The 17-35 f/2.8 is better for astrophotography due to its wider aperture, reducing noise in dark conditions. The 17-40 f/4 is less ideal but usable with higher ISO or longer exposures.

Do they work with newer Canon bodies?
Both are compatible with all Canon EOS cameras since 1987, including modern bodies like the 5D Mark IV, thanks to the EF mount.