Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · 17-40 or 16-35
  
 
Jason Lang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · 17-40 or 16-35


Shoot with 7D, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8, and 100-400. Looking for an ultra wide and am stuck between these two. 17-40 is about half the price... But my, albeit infrequent, night landscapes and star work may require faster glass. Opinions?


Jan 19, 2013 at 03:42 AM
Jason Lang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · 17-40 or 16-35


I'll eventually go full frame... So EFS is not an option


Jan 19, 2013 at 03:43 AM
Langran
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · 17-40 or 16-35


I bought a 17-40, for landscapes it's fantastic but on a occasion I do wish I had the f2.8 (these times tend to be with indoor shooting not landscapes). I've invested in a 24L mkI for night time work with stars. I would say that the 17-40 is a bit of a pointless lens when used on a crop sensor (just my opinion) but I bought one when I had just my 7D as I also knew I would be upgrading. It doesn't really shine until you go full frame

Have you considered the 16-35 mkI second hand if you think f2.8 is needed but budget is an issue?



Jan 19, 2013 at 04:01 AM
robbymack
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · 17-40 or 16-35


I know you said Efs isn't an option because you will "eventually go ff" but thats sort of like not buying the merc Amg s class because it doesn't have a towing package and you may one day buy a boat. 17 or 16 really isn't "wide" on crop anyway. Honestly buy the 10-22 yes it's Efs, and yes it's variable aperture but both of the other options aren't wide and honestly aren't any better, in fact both could be argued are decidedly worse. Buy used and you won't lose a dime of value when and if you ever make the ff jump.


Jan 19, 2013 at 04:12 AM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · 17-40 or 16-35


The EF-S 10-22 is a sweet lens; same FOV as a 16-35mm on FF, I have one and love it on my 40D. I also have the 17-40 for my EOS-3 film body, and love it a bit more, to say it's pointless on a crop body is nuts IMHO, it works great; see images linked below.

10-22
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1127903/40#10885396

17-40
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1149712/15#11014188

Is the extra 1mm and stop of the 16-35 f2.8 required...sometimes yes...but I'd try out the 17-40 1st, then if you need wider/faster later on, get a prime.



Jan 19, 2013 at 04:59 AM
Dono T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · 17-40 or 16-35


Get the sigma 12-24 mark 1. I haven't tested one out myself but currently working on this dilemma. Its rectilinear corrections are supposed to blow these other two out of the water and you save a ton of money. The downfall is softer corners, variable aperture and not weather proof. Apparently the mark ii went downhill on it's rectilinear abilities.


Jan 19, 2013 at 05:19 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · 17-40 or 16-35


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-Sigma-12-24mm-f-4-5-5-6-EX-DG-Asph-HSM-Zoom-Lens-221799-/121053182760?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c2f54fb28

That one? It looks good.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/310-sigma-af-12-24mm-f45-56-ex-hsm-dg-lab-test-report--review?start=1



Jan 19, 2013 at 05:40 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · 17-40 or 16-35


Get the 16-35L II and be ready to go full frame. Great lens, one of my favorites.


Jan 19, 2013 at 06:02 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · 17-40 or 16-35


Jason Lang wrote:
I'll eventually go full frame... So EFS is not an option




Jason Lang wrote:
Looking for an ultra wide and am stuck between these two. 17-40 is about half the price... ?



Problem is they are so different. UWA on a crop is in the 10-12mm range . Just 1mm change (which is effectively 1.6mm in ff terms) has a massive effect on FOV .
So 16-17mm is only really the start of a standard zoom on a crop.

Unless your thinking FF very soon I would choose the lens that's RIGHT for you NOW . Not what will be right at an unspessified point in the future.

A good lens no matter if its an L or an EFs holds its value well enough



Jan 19, 2013 at 12:40 PM
leftymgp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · 17-40 or 16-35


I was pondering this question about a year ago. I'm not into star photography, but I really like the depth of field control of a larger aperture. I had actually not really considered the 17-40L for quite a bit. I was more trying to decide between a 24L and the 16-35. Anyway, I ended up with the 17-40 and I've been pretty satisfied with it. I decided that f/2.8 wasn't quite enough aperture for the DOF shots I wanted and I wanted the ability to go wider than 24mm. So my plan became to get the 17-40 to satisfy a missing wide angle capability and then later get a 35L or something similar for wider shots with thin DOF.


Jan 19, 2013 at 01:17 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Jason Lang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · 17-40 or 16-35


Thanks for the input -- certainly a difficult decision and there are a lot of options. I appreciate the feedback and will update when I move ahead.


Jan 19, 2013 at 04:10 PM
Grantland
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · 17-40 or 16-35


Gunzorro wrote:
Get the 16-35L II and be ready to go full frame. Great lens, one of my favorites.


exactly.

i had both these lenses but sold the 17-40 f/4.0 after purchasing the 16-35 II.



Jan 19, 2013 at 04:13 PM
Wobble
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · 17-40 or 16-35


EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Autofocus Lens


Jan 19, 2013 at 04:14 PM
kewlcanon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · 17-40 or 16-35


"night landscapes and star work may require faster glass"

Not sure why you meant, you're going to shoot f/8 at least for landscape. 17-40 is pretty darn sharp lens and it's cheap too.

Jason Lang wrote:
Shoot with 7D, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8, and 100-400. Looking for an ultra wide and am stuck between these two. 17-40 is about half the price... But my, albeit infrequent, night landscapes and star work may require faster glass. Opinions?



Edited on Jan 19, 2013 at 04:18 PM · View previous versions



Jan 19, 2013 at 04:17 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · 17-40 or 16-35


Grantland wrote:
exactly.

i had both these lenses but sold the 17-40 f/4.0 after purchasing the 16-35 II.




Same here.

I was sorry to sell the 17-40, but it couldn't compete against the 16-35L II, and I need the cash for other things (I think it was a 1D Mark II).



Jan 19, 2013 at 04:17 PM
timbop
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · 17-40 or 16-35


robbymack wrote:
I know you said Efs isn't an option because you will "eventually go ff" but thats sort of like not buying the merc Amg s class because it doesn't have a towing package and you may one day buy a boat....


Exactly. For a "normal" crop lens that's fast the original tamron 17-50 is an excellent choice. Very good image quality, as wide an aperture as you can get in a zoom, and half the price of the 17-40.

If you do go fullframe, then a 17-40 or 16-35 which is a "normal" crop lens will be an UWA and have to be replaced anyway.

If you really want one of those 2, the 17-40 would be my call

Edited on Jan 19, 2013 at 04:42 PM · View previous versions



Jan 19, 2013 at 04:38 PM
outlawyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · 17-40 or 16-35


17-40 is my landscape lens on FF. Colors and contrast are excellent.
With tripod and flash(es), takes excellent interior shots.

Considered the 16, but 2.8, while better than 4, is still not fast enough for many available light indoor shots. If you need a flash anyway, the only other consideration for me is DOF.



Jan 19, 2013 at 04:40 PM
15Bit
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · 17-40 or 16-35


I liked my 17-40mm on crop, and used it a lot. It did feel a little short at the long end though, and f/4 was often a bit dark indoors. I also bought it with a view to going FF, but since i upgraded i confess i've been less impressed with it on FF (compared to my 10-22mm on crop).

If i had a do-over i think i would buy the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and then trade it in at upgrade time.



Jan 19, 2013 at 04:44 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · 17-40 or 16-35


Jason Lang wrote:
Shoot with 7D, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8, and 100-400. Looking for an ultra wide and am stuck between these two. 17-40 is about half the price... But my, albeit infrequent, night landscapes and star work may require faster glass. Opinions?


You bring up several considerations here: the question of the 17-40 versus the 16-35, the night photography question, and the issue of shooting cropped sensor with a plan to eventually move to full frame.

Regarding the two lenses you mention...

Both the 17-40 and the 16-35 are very fine lenses that are used to produce a lot of excellent photography. Either could be the better choice depending upon your needs. (Some make the false assumption that the 16-35 must be able to serve them better simply because it carries a higher price and has a larger maximum aperture. Maybe and maybe not.)

On full frame cameras, the 16-35mm f/2.8 can be an excellent choice if your main need is for an ultra-wide zoom for hand held shooting in low light at the largest apertures. Its chief virtues relate to the fact that it has f/2.8 and that it is better in the corners at f/4 than the 17-40. However, stopped down it provides no advantage over the 17-40.

On full frame cameras, the 17-40 is a great choice if you are most interested in a lens for ultra-wide shooting at smaller apertures and likely from the tripod - in other words, it is a fine lens for landscape and similar work. Stopped down it is the equal of the 16-35 and some suggest that it could be marginally (but, in reality, insignificantly) sharper stopped down and a bit less subject to flare.

About night photography...

If your approach to night photography is about the high ISO, biggest-possible-aperture, stop the stars and show the milky way thing, I can see why you might be interested in aperture. On the other hand, most night photography is not done that way, but instead simply lengthens the exposure time, uses apertures and ISOs similar to those used for daytime work, and relies on the tripod... and patience from the photographer as long exposures complete. Here, neither of these lenses has a significant advantage over the other. In fact, if you are pushing things to the point that you need to maximize aperture for this sort of thing, you might be wise to invest in a few inexpensive, large aperture primes. The difference between f/4 and f/2.8 isn't nearly as significant as getting, say, f/1.4.

On the idea that you will eventually get a full frame camera...

This comes up a lot when those who own cropped sensor cameras start looking at lenses. It is a tricky question. It brings up the question of whether there are lenses that will actually perform better for you than the L alternatives (and L lenses are not always the best choice), how soon you will really "switch," whether or not you will keep the cropped sensor body when you do, and how particular focal length ranges function on crop and full frame.

Neither 16mm or 17mm is "ultra-wide" on your cropped sensor camera. If you need ultra-wide, you will not have that if you buy either of these lenses for your fine 7D. What you will have is a wide to normal or short telephoto lens. If you don't need that and you do "need" ultra-wide, I wonder if it really makes sense to spend a lot of money right now for a lens that will not provide what you need.

True ultra-wide lenses are available for your 7D, including the highly regarded EFS 10-22 and third-party options. They [i[will give you the coverage that is your primary reason for your lens shopping.

If you don't really need ultra-wide, but are actually looking for a lens that goes no wider than about 17mm, then there are better options for your current camera than either of the L lenses. On virtually every count the Canon EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens provides better functionality and image quality on a cropped sensor camera than either of the L zooms. It provides a large focal length range, it gives you f/2.8, image quality is as good or arguably better, and it includes image stabilization. If you put red rings and the letter L on the 17-40, the 16-35, and the 17-55 and asked unbiased shooters to choose based purely on performance, the cropped sensor shooters would have to choose the EFS lens. (There is an argument that it doesn't have the "L build," but it is a very well built lens.)

This gets to that question of "buying gear for the camera I don't have." This can be a good idea in certain situations. For example, if a lens provides excellent functionality on both crop and FF, it is almost a no brainer as long as that functionality is what you need. Or, if you are certain that you will get a full frame camera very soon (say in a few months) and are in the process of getting the lenses it could make sense. However, it doesn't make sense if your intent is more of a deadline free hope, and you might find yourself shooting with the present camera for, say, a year or more. In that case it usually makes more sense to get the lens that is best for the camera that you do (and with which you'll be making photographs for the foreseeable future) than to get a lens that might be great for a camera you don't have and may not have for a long time.

I understand the economic argument for not investing in lenses that you might not use for a long time, but that may not be quite what it seems either. What will happen when and if you do get the full frame camera? Will you keep the cropped sensor body as a second/backup camera? If so, you'll still want your lenses for it, won't you? Or will you sell the 7D? If so, you can sell the lenses that you don't need along with the body or separately. Since everything in photography depreciates over time, you will get back less money than you spent - that is unavoidable. However, imagine that you "lost" $180 of the value of the lens over the course of a year - if you think of that as "rent," it cost you $15/month to use the lens. Is it worth $15/month to you to have the optimal lens for the camera you use to make your photographs - e.g. the equivalent of a few stops at Starbucks or a third of a tank of gas?

Good luck with your decisions.

Dan



Jan 19, 2013 at 04:51 PM
Wobble
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · 17-40 or 16-35


Take your 100-400mm out tonight and see if f/4.5 is fast enough. If so, then the 17-40 or 10-22 may do.

100-400 not fast enough? Then try your 70-200mm. This should tell you if the 16-35 will suffice.

There are always tradeoffs. Gain light and lose width or ...





Jan 19, 2013 at 05:55 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password