I have a 17-40 f4 but I need a faster lens for party shots, street walking etc.
I was going to get a Canon 24 1.4L or 35 1.4L, but am now thinking of just selling the 17-40 and getting a 16-35 2.8L.
This should work for low light (1 stop faster) and that way I only have 1 lens when I am travelling.
However, If I go for a fast prime for the low light work, will it really give that much better results than the 16-35, and will I experience problems getting a good focus for shooting people, groups of 2,3 or 10 people , when shooting at f1.4, f2 etc
Optically, the 35L is the best of the group followed by a close 2nd of 24L. Yep, the difference is noticable for low light work. The corners on the 16-35L wears out much faster whereas the 35L tends to be sharp corner to corner. It's also very sharp wide open with nice bokeh whereas the 16-35L tends not be as sharp unless stopped down. Alot of folks need to go through 3-4 copies before getting a good one for the zoom. I've had both, and I can say the primes win everytime. I just got another sharp copy of 35L and this time, I'm holding on to it.
Of course if you like zooms for wide on a 1.6x crop, most are praising the 10-22 which is a 16-35L equivalent. At 3.5-4.5 may not be as fast as you want it but I've seen many low light, street and landscape pics which are great. Check pbase for examples. It also depends what you're looking for. Any wide angle causes distortion up close so don't know how far back you will be from the subjects though on a 1.6x crop it is less pronounced.
Edited by GoldenBoy on Apr 26, 2005 at 06:19 AM GMT
well, you can't really compare the 16-35L with the 35L, they serve different purposes. you probably can fit a group of more than 4-5 people in one shot with the 35L (with a 1.6x camera). whereas the wideangle-zoom will be perfect for group-shots as you describe..
I'm thinking of getting one myself, as the 15 FE, which is currently my only wide-choice is pretty special and isn't really adequate for all the times i need a WA. I'd get a 17-40L, but i'm shooting alot PJ-style in mostly dimmly lit places, i guess the extra stop would be worth it. I don't think the corner-falloff would be that much of a problem for most circumstances..
I'm currently doing the same since I got the 35L. Just sold the 16-35L to fund the purchase but now pondering whether to get another copy wide angle zoom 16-35L, 17-40L or even the 10-22. At this point, the best value lens is the 17-40L but with a 35L in the bag, it might just do. Saw Marcus Yam's Sum 41 thread in People forum with 17-40L and it's not bad at all in poor lighting. The 10-22 is tempting... except for the efs mount should I upgrade to 1D series. Then there's always B/S.
i should elaborate, i would only be using the 16-20 range of the zoom for landscape/travelling, and the 24/35 range for people/parties/street.
Is it hard to lock a good focus at such wide apeture on the primes on faces etc,
i basically just need to warrant carrying an extra lens in my bag, its such a tough decision, the 20d's higher ISO performace I have found to be really good, the 16-35 might be just fine, but everybody praises the 24L and 35 L so much,
makes one tend to wonder what they are missing out on.
The primes are faster lenses and locks AF esp. in low lighting much better. In your case the 16-35L is better for your style of shooting so f2.8 is fine. Plus selling off the 17-40L your cost is equal to buying the same zoom again which is still in your budget. For me, I always carry 2-3 lenses in the Domke so it's more versatile for me to have more options. Again, just do a quick search on pbase to get sample shots of 35L or 24L. If your store has them all, just do some test shots and compare at home.
Make sure you try several 16-35L's to get the sharpest copy.
You'll nearly always find that primes will be sharper than zooms edge to edge, that said I use my 16-35 as my main walk about lens. I find mine acceptably sharp on the 1x6crop and easy to focus.
You can always push the iso when needed to 800 with the 16-35 to get to the same as a 1.4 because 800 is quite good on the 20D, but that said you'd only have to push the iso to 200 on your own 17-40 to get the same as the 16-35, do you realy need f2.8?.
With regard to your question on the 35 at 1.4 and the depth of field, it depends on the distance you are away from your subject. The further away the subject the greater the depth of field becomes(more likely for larger groups) but the closer you are the thinner the depth of field becomes. Check out the Canon site in japan in the canon museum they have depth of field charts for all the lens.
Just one more note, if I was moving to a 1x3 crop or FF crop I dbout I'd use my 16-35. I think that would call for a 24 or 35 prime for the larger edge to edge on the sensor and I think the 16-35 would show its flaws.
The EFS mount is a no/no for me as I plan to move up to 1D some time in the future.
I am also very happy with the 16-35. I chose it instead of the 17-35 because of the f/2.8. The quality of the pictures at 16 f/2.8 are very good. I will highly recommend it.
I just got my 16-35L from a good deal from Dell (paid $1088) and also have the "rare" 35L. I really like the pictures from the 35 but really misses the flexibility of a zoom (I used to have the big 24-70L). I am still in the period of evaluating the 16-35 and looking for acceptable way of comparing the two. Do you guys know a way of comparing lenses and what to look based on their picture output? I'd like to hear from people who used to or currently own the two lenses how they'd do it.
I have a 20D and I have both the 35L and the 16-35. The 16-35 is a perfect walking around lens for the 20D. It also does a great job on landscapes (I do not have the 10-22, so cannot tell you if that is better for very wide angle). The 16-35 is excellent at about 19mm, and not bad at 16mm on the 20D. Having said that, the 35L is in a different class. Whenever 35mm is wide enough, I use the 35L regardless of the aperature. If I had to choose one or the other, I would keep my 16-35. Having said that, I am glad I have both lenses.
i sold my good copy of the 17-40 to get the faster 16-35. the first copy of the 16 was not up to scratch but the second one - wow!. i'm not letting this one go.
To answer a few questions:
I haven't tried the Sigma 14mm yet, although it sounds tempting.
I sure would like to try that 10-22 someday.
The house is a couple miles from me and around the corner from my brother's. The day it goes up for sale, is the day, I sell off all of my Canon gear and go into hock for that house
