I've posted this on DPReview but wondered if anyone here would care to chime in. If it looks like a worthwhile upgrade I'll do it. Apart from the obvious speed difference does the new lens yield a worthwhile increase in performance?
I'd get a 16-35 mostly for the extra stop: that's its unique selling point. The 17-40 when stopped down is a very good performer, so if you find you're shooting mostly at f/8 or better, I would save the money for something else.
If however you find you regularly miss shots because of the f/4 aperture and/or find the corner performance of the 17-40 lacking at f/4, then it might be a good time to upgrade as the 16-35 MkII is an excellent performer.
I have found an old thread about the two lenses that has been helpful. Sorry if this is another repeated thread! I really quite like my 17-40 and have no complaints other than I wish to use it occasionally at 5.6 and don't really have confidence with it at that aperture. So Emile. your reply was bang on. I am using it mostly at F8 or above. If the MK II is better in this department then maybe it is for me. Flare is another issue. The other problem seems to be copy variance apparently. Is there an obvious QC problem here or not. Anyone any thoughts?
I've posted this on DPReview but wondered if anyone here would care to chime in. If it looks like a worthwhile upgrade I'll do it. Apart from the obvious speed difference does the new lens yield a worthwhile increase in performance?
Thanks for any replies.
If your main use is hand held low light ultra wide shooting and you use a full-frame camera, then quite possibly yes.
If your main use is landscape/architectural and similar smaller aperture photography on a FF body then quite likely no.
If you shoot a cropped sensor body and you need increased low light hand held shooting ability then the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens could be a better bet.
One of the reasons I'm considering the upgrade is because of the MP hike in the new cameras. I'm going down the prime route as well (an expensive time) but my business still needs the zooms.
That is a crisp image. Great colours as well. Thanks for posting. If it was posed ( and you did have actors ) I presume it was on a tripod and lit well by your / stage lighting. Do you have any images that are shot at F4 -5.6 without that are hand held?
I'll look for what you say...I just have some shots on the laptop I keep there for posts to FM.
This shot is posed and no tripod, all my theatre stuff is always handheld (posed with strobes or not), a tripod would be far too much trouble and take too much time to fool with & room is always an issue...and I was busy, we did about 20 stages shots and had an hour to do it in, although it took about an hour and a half. I can't do this alone and don't know the scenes that well so I have the director, and at least one producer there at all times so we can set up each shot quickly and get everyone in position...a team effort. One of the stage hands helps me move my light stands and position the light...and it is always in 'hurry-up' mode.
I had three Speedotrons set up for lighting the stage for the press shots (could have used four...it is a lot of people to cover and you can see that toward the back, my one overhead we not enough really. These posed shots are the ones that the PR group sends out to critics, reporters, etc, so we try to light them well. The stage lights, while usually good, are no where near strong enough to get ISO 125 as this one is.
As with just about every one of these type topics posted here, the only correct answer IMO is "It depends"". I have both, and prefer the 17-40 for landscape work as I usually backpack some distances for my landscape photography, and weight is a factor. Plus, stopped down as with landscape photography there's not a relevant difference between the two. But I also shoot a lot of weddings, concerts etc where the extra stop is much, much more important to me than the weight. But if I could only have one it would of course be the 16-35 as it is more versatile with the extra stop. If you really need that stop, there's no question. But if you're just shooting stopped down anyways then it would be difficult to justify the premium.
my take: not a "worthwhile" increase in performance, no. The 17-40 is a great lens within its limitations, and good value. The 16-35II (if my sample is a good example) is noticeably better at the wide end, the 17-40 a little bit better at the long end, both are equal at small apertures. If pure optical performance is what you need, save up for even better lenses (my 35L positively embarrasses both these zooms, as will many other primes, and some zooms like the Nikon 14-24).
I needed autofocus, f2.8, light weight, and an ordinary filter ring. For that combination of attributes it was well worth it to me. The extra 1mm of wide end was a bonus that I've made good use of, more so than the 5mm of long on the 17-40.
Thanks for the excellent advice. 'It depends' is probably what it comes down to. I think I will look into the new 24mm as well. Maybe the zoom does not need upgrading quite yet. I guess I would like a 20mm L lens. That would be great. Still, I'll see if I can find someone to lend me a 16-35 MK II to see how it works for me. After I replace my 85 1.8 with the L MK II I may not wish to spend anymore
markdennis wrote:
One of the reasons I'm considering the upgrade is because of the MP hike in the new cameras. I'm going down the prime route as well (an expensive time) but my business still needs the zooms.
If your goal is to get a "sharper" lens than you 17-40, the 16-35 will only be so at the largest apertures. At moderate to smaller apertures they are roughly equal with perhaps a slight edge to the 17-40.
) I presume it was on a tripod and lit well by your / stage lighting. Do you have any images that are shot at F4 -5.6 without that are hand held?