Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work

  
 
Kisutch
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


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.






Oct 13, 2014 at 09:30 AM
KiboOst
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


I just had my 16-35/4IS so take it with a grain of salt, but even if my 17-40 is plenty sharp in the large center, I would go for the 16-35 ...
17-40 is a bit soft (not as sharp ?) at the long end, and 16-35 is just awesome at this price. You can use it at any focal length, any aperture without having to worry about the result. This alone is a no brainer for me. Now if you are sure you will never need extreme corners and are on a budget, 17-40 is very nice (mine is tack sharp at f/4 17mm in the center).



Oct 13, 2014 at 09:40 AM
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
...Show more



Oct 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM
Kisutch
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


Thanks a lot for the quick responses. I'm getting two setups so maybe I'll go 17-40 on one and 16-35 on the other; I'll report back if I do.

cheers



Oct 13, 2014 at 10:44 AM
sivrajbm
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


What Dan said, if you are going to buy two get two 16/35's. The sharpness across the frame is excellent plus IS for another $160...
I had both and sold my 17-40 after using the 16-35 just a couple of times...



Oct 13, 2014 at 11:25 AM
Kisutch
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


Thanks. I think the effective price difference might be a bit more for my situation. I would buy the 17-40 used or refurbished for $500-700, whereas I'd probably have to pay closer to $1200 for the 16-35, since it'd have to buy it new.


Oct 13, 2014 at 12:41 PM
sivrajbm
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


Sorry had my pricing mixing up the 16-35 is $1200 the 24-70/4 is $999 also an excellent lens...


Oct 13, 2014 at 06:48 PM
fredv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


I shoot almost everything with 2 lenses 16-35 and 70-200, I love my 16-35 and the 2.8 aperture is great for spreading the subject from the background. If you can afford it go with the big apertures.


Oct 14, 2014 at 10:17 PM
Alex Nail
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


Having done tests at these settings I see next to no difference between the 17-40 and 16-35 f4L IS when stopped down past f8 except in the corners. If you are willing to accept the corner softness then the 17-40 is much better value.


Oct 15, 2014 at 03:09 AM
alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


Kisutch wrote:
, 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.



Even stopped down to f/11, the 16-35 F4 L IS will have a little better flare resistance and thus better contrast. It also has less lateral chromatic aberrations. These aberrations don't disappear when stopping down, and could lead to a little reduction in percieved sharpness (after software correction of CA ) if the subject is located away from the center.



Oct 15, 2014 at 05:50 AM
mattdoebler
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


I recently shot a portrait session with the 17-40 and 70-200. I've used the 16-36 2.8 II before, but my images with the 17-40 were virtually indistinguishable from those I've gotten with the 16/35. Here's a link to the gallery: http://redthreadsnaps.pass.us/haleyandschyler


Oct 15, 2014 at 06:53 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


Alex Nail wrote:
Having done tests at these settings I see next to no difference between the 17-40 and 16-35 f4L IS when stopped down past f8 except in the corners. If you are willing to accept the corner softness then the 17-40 is much better value.


I would agree that the 17-40 does well in the center, and that the main resolution difference appears as you go toward the corners of the frame. Stopping down the 17-40 improves its performance in the corners significantly. (For a long time, my 17-40 recommendation has been to consider it if your photography is mostly small aperture, tripod based work, since for that it works as well as the f/2.8 version of the 16-35mm lens.)

However, the 16-35 f/4 improves corner performance over both of the earlier Canon ultra wide zooms (17-40 f/4 and 16-35 f/2.8) in very significant ways, at least if your shooting benefits from best resolution across the frame. The improvement in the corners is visible at all apertures, though you'd have to look more closely if you shoot at f/16.

Dan



Oct 15, 2014 at 10:09 AM
halse
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 16-35/4 vs. 17-40 for stopped-down remote camera work


the lens correction in LightRoom does wonders for 17-40 FF images


Oct 15, 2014 at 08:40 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.