gdanmitchell Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work | |
Quick comment, having used both lenses.
With your caveats that you are OK with soft corners and that you will shoot at smaller apertures — and f/16 would be better than f/8 here — you may well be a candidate for the 17-40. That said, the 16-35 f/4 is a real improvement in the ways you have probably read about. If cost isn't an issue, I'd get the 16-35 — if cost is... the 17-40 is good and sharp in the center.
Dan
Kisutch wrote:
I'm upgrading some remote camera setups to full frame, for better high ISO performance. I'm trying to decide between the 17-40 and the new 16-35/4.
I shoot at f/8 to f/16 exclusively, never wide aperture shots, always on a tripod. I shoot environmental portraits, I don't need corner sharpness to the degree a landscape photographer would, but I am concerned with sharpness for subjects placed on the thirds of the frame and I print large. I will use the full range of focal lengths, so it's important to me not to have weakness at one end or the other.
I realize there are plenty of reviews and quantifications of each lens' IQ out there, but I'd still appreciate some thoughts on whether the improvements to the new 16-35 would matter for my style of photography. In other words, if you stop down to f/11, shoot an environmental portrait, and print it to 30x40; are you likely to notice a difference in image quality between these two lenses? Would the subject (not tree branches in the extreme corner) look any sharper if I used the new 16-35?
Thanks a bunch for any advice.
...Show more →
|