16-35 vs 17-40

[rmp]

Wondering if anyone with a 16-35 can help me out with a decision -- whether to buy the 16-35 or the 17-40. I've researched all the pros and cons, read the LL article etc, know about the weight difference, cost...but what I've not been able to find are example photos demonstrating the difference in aperture. That's all I really want to know, answer the question "what would a shot at 17mm f/2.8 min-DOF look like compared to the same one at f/4". In other words, what sort of effect would the extra money buy me that the 17-40 just couldn't do.

Anyone know of any examples? Thanks.

[tntman]

I've had the 17-40 for years since its release. I've also played with the 16-35 extensively over a number of times hence this is my opinion of it.

The 16-35 does give you slightly better colors and definition. Wide open at f2.8 the images are a bit soft, however at f3.5 onwards its tack sharp. My 17-40mm is pretty sharp at f4 already and gets tack sharp onwards. I'd say the 17-40mm is approx 95% of the Mark 1 16-35mm. I havent had a chance to use a mark 2 yet. The price difference between the 2 is almost double.

In terms of depth effects, at wide angle, there isnt much difference. Its wide, bokeh is almost none existant but its there. Hmm... don't really know what else to say... but I hope I've helped a bit!

[rmp]

In terms of depth effects, at wide angle, there isnt much difference. Its wide, bokeh is almost none existant but its there. Hmm... don't really know what else to say... but I hope I've helped a bit!

Yep that's what I'm after, thanks. I don't expect a lot of bokeh but what I don't know is if there's any appreciable difference between 2.8 and 4 at around 17-20mm. Basically what shots could I get with the 16-35 I couldn't with the 17-40. Not fussed about speed, these days high ISO can compensate for that most of the time.