| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
17-40/4 vs. 16-35/2.8
Stew Milne, Photographer
 |
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 5:39 PM on 11.06.09 |
->> So I'm in the need of a wide angle as my 14mm is dying. My choice is between the Canon 17-40/4 and the 16-35/2.8. With today's camera's (5D II, Mark IV), do I really need the 2.8? Is one sharper than the other? The 17-40/4 is about half the price, which I could use to go toward a new Mark IV.
Your thoughts please. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 5:49 PM on 11.06.09 |
| ->> Are you going to be shooting in low light conditions that much with a wide angle? |
|
Richard Heathcote, Photographer
|
London | . | UK | Posted: 6:13 PM on 11.06.09 |
->> The new 16-35/2.8 mk2 is a massive improvement on the original lens, very, very sharp but I have had 2 of them go back for repairs due to the front section falling apart (warranty repair)
I don't own or have ever used the 17-40/4 but I know many photographers who have this lens and think it's amazing, as long as you don't need 2.8
the question you need to ask yourself is the extra focal length v the extra f stop (and extra $$$) |
|
Andrew Carpenean, Photographer
|
Laramie | WY | USA | Posted: 6:40 PM on 11.06.09 |
->> The Canon 16-35 is the only lens I haven't liked of our newspaper gear. Its very soft on the sides and fluctuates when focusing. Its annoying.
I am not sure if the Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 wide angle zoom will work on a full frame sensor like Nikon's 10-24, but if so that might be worth looking into. For the price though and high iso capabilities I would bank on the 17-40. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 7:33 PM on 11.06.09 |
| ->> The 16-35 mk 11 is much better then the first 16-35, it is also much better then the 17-40 . Mostly the improvement is in the corners |
|
David Eulitt, Photographer
|
Kansas City | MO | USA | Posted: 8:11 PM on 11.06.09 |
| ->> Agreed that the original 16-35, that I'm stuck with, is pretty horrible. |
|
Mike Doran, Photographer
|
Petaluma | CA | U.S.A. | Posted: 8:15 PM on 11.06.09 |
| ->> I have the 17-40 and have used both versions of the 16-35. I have used these lens in a multitude of environments and even though I like the 17-40 I would rather have the 16-35 because it is a 2.8 lens. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:27 PM on 11.06.09 |
| ->> Wouldn't getting your 14mm fixed be cheaper than either of these alternatives? |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:59 AM on 11.07.09 |
->> I must have been lucky when I got my original 16-35 in 2004 to replace my 17-35 because it is, and always has been, very good. As sharp as my prime 20mm and easy to use - especially with the 1D series cameras. Now that I'm on 5D MkII the extreme corners aren't as sharp and I would like them at f2.8 but by the time you stop down to f5.6 they are good.
The age of my lens means that it is due for replacement and a MkII is on my wish list. The funny thing is that I am using the 24-70 so much I often ignore the 16-35!
Neil |
|
David Boily, Photographer
|
Montreal | QC | Canada | Posted: 8:59 AM on 11.07.09 |
| ->> I have had all three. The 17-40 was absolutely great. I have had 2 16-35mm lenses. One was horrible and the other good. The 16-35mm MarkII I had was nice but too bulky for a lens I didn't use all that often. On a 5DII I would go with the 17-40. You lose a stop but gain 5mm on the high end. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 9:37 AM on 11.07.09 |
->> Will the Mk IV focus f-4.0 lenses with the same set of AF sensors as f-2.8 lenses?
I don't shoot Canon so I haven't studied the next gen cameras. But not too long ago one benefit of having f-2.8 and faster lenses was better, faster auto focussing from the crossed sensor array.
I once had the original 16-35/2.8 issued to me, I hated it. I used a 28/1.8 and a Tokina 17/3.5 instead. Those days and Canons are well behind me now.
With the new cameras having at least two stops more of usable high ISO maybe it isn't such a bad trade-off to give up a stop of wide open aperture on a wide angle lens. The weight savings won't be that much, it's still a zoom, but the dollars saved will get you that Mk IV sooner. |
|
Andrew Nelles, Photographer
 |
Chicago | Ill. | usa | Posted: 9:41 AM on 11.07.09 |
| ->> I use to hate and avoid my 16-35 also, but it's grown on me lately. It's sharper than I had remembered, and getting use. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|