I'd like to hear your opinions if you have used both these lenses for wedding work. I use a 5D.
Thanks for your time.

Edited by tutumon on Mar 27, 2008 at 08:13 AM GMT

You can always stop the 2.8 lens down to f/4.

Honestly, other than price, theres really no area that the 17-40 wins in unless you NEED those 5 MM on the long end.

Raise your prices a bit and buy the 2.8 glass. You won't regret it.

16-35 hands down. The extra stop of light is generally critical. As long as you've got the cash, I don't see a reason to go for the 17-40. Alternatively, you can pick up a 16-35 Mk. I on the buy and sell board here for about $900 to $950, which may strike an appropriate medium for you. I've had a Mk. I for over a year now and always been quite satisfied.

i can comment from the other end of things-i owned the 17-40 and had mixed feelings-good lens, sharp, nice color/contrast, etc.-however, the f/4 was a pain indoors, just too slow and limiting-the extra stop can come in handy-for the variety of settings a typical wedding throws you into, 2.8 is as "slow" as you'll wanna go

daniel

16-35L is wicked sharp. Both are great, but like radio said, 2.8 is as slow as you want to go. I consider it pretty slow for indoor stuff.

Theres a whopping $1000+ difference between the 16-35L and the 17-40L however its worth it!
If you are on a budget grab the tamron 17-50 2.8 probably the most underrated lens on the market outstanding picture quality for under $500 bucks...!

neridah wrote:
Theres a whopping $1000+ difference between the 16-35L and the 17-40L however its worth it!
If you are on a budget grab the tamron 17-50 2.8 probably the most underrated lens on the market outstanding picture quality for under $500 bucks...!

+1 here. I finding out more and more that primes are the wa to go but if a zoom is what flots your boat you can't go wrong with the 17~50 Tam. It's not L quality like the 16~35 but it rocks the socks off the the 17~40.

The 17-40 f4 L is soft at 40mm and f4 thus making it an f5.6 lens. I know because I have one and Michael Riechmann test on Luminous Landscape confirms this.

If you shoot documentary/photojournalistic style, then of course you know how valuable a stop is when photographing moving subjects. But if you primarily stop and pose/portrait your subjects then save your money and get the slower glass. It's an easy decision, but it simply depends on what and how you shoot.

As for the Tamron recommendation, I don't believe that lens is compatible with 1 series or 5D bodies, ruling it out for many of us. Plus it does not have USM focusing motor, which also rules it out for me. But once again it simply depends on how you shoot, and in this case what camera you shoot with.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

Just an FYI, the Tamron lenses will work with 1D or 5D bodies. I use my Tamron 28-70 2.8 on my 1D and 40D and it works just fine. I don't know anything about the 17-50, but have read many good things about it. Tamron's don't focus as fast as L series lenses and I do find that my 28-70 will hunt in dark rooms, but they are very sharp.

Mike

The Tamron 17-50 is a DII lens, the equivalent of EF-S. It will mount to FF or APS-H, but it will have some of the most bada$$ vignetting you've ever seen.

Thanks for all the suggestions. Should have mentioned this first. I use a 5D. Looks like the 16-35 will be the way to go.

Only warning on the 16-35 II - I rented one and found the 35mm end a little soft when stopped down to 2.8. If I zoomed in, I really needed f4 to get the sharpness that I wanted. The images looked fine when I went down to the pixel level but when I popped to the larger image, I just couldn't help but think that maybe I could have done a better job... You can't see it when the photos are cut down for web resolution, only with the raw stuff in Lightroom. On the other hand, from 16-24mm the lens is sexy.

using the original 16-35 mk.1 here.... hands down the fastest to focus & BEST low light lens I own (4 L zoms & 4 primes). My best candid & reception lens.

neridah wrote:
Theres a whopping $1000+ difference between the 16-35L and the 17-40L however its worth it!
If you are on a budget grab the tamron 17-50 2.8 probably the most underrated lens on the market outstanding picture quality for under $500 bucks...!

+1

Purchased mine today for $369 !

Anyone who thinks the 16-35 is in any way sharp probably hasn't used a 35L or even a cheap 28 f1.8, or any Nikon ultra-wide zoom for that matter. It's a vastly overrated lens.

I have the 16-35 (both versions) and use it only as a last resort. I used to have a 17-40 an for those on a budget, it IS a better value as long as its paired with a faster, sharp prime.

I haven't had the pleasure of using the Tamron but from the looks of it can only be better than the Canon when all factors are totaled up.

While it does have some strengths, Canon's got a bad rep for relative zoom sharpness and there's a reason.

-m

mauriceramirez wrote:
Anyone who thinks the 16-35 is in any way sharp probably hasn't used a 35L or even a cheap 28 f1.8, or any Nikon ultra-wide zoom for that matter. It's a vastly overrated lens.

I have the 16-35 (both versions) and use it only as a last resort. I used to have a 17-40 an for those on a budget, it IS a better value as long as its paired with a faster, sharp prime.

I haven't had the pleasure of using the Tamron but from the looks of it can only be better than the Canon when all factors are totaled up.

While it does have some strengths, Canon's got a bad rep for relative zoom sharpness and there's a reason.

-m

Actually, I own the 16-35 MK1, and it is the sharpest lens I have wide open. Also have the 35L, 85 1.8, and 70-200 2.8. Of course, the 35L is sharper at 2.8, but my 16-35 is sharper at 2.8 than the 35L is at 2.0. but i am well aware that i have a really nice copy.

mauriceramirez wrote:
Anyone who thinks the 16-35 is in any way sharp probably hasn't used a 35L or even a cheap 28 f1.8, or any Nikon ultra-wide zoom for that matter. It's a vastly overrated lens.

I have the 16-35 (both versions) and use it only as a last resort. I used to have a 17-40 an for those on a budget, it IS a better value as long as its paired with a faster, sharp prime.

I haven't had the pleasure of using the Tamron but from the looks of it can only be better than the Canon when all factors are totaled up.

While it does have some strengths, Canon's got a bad rep for relative zoom sharpness and there's a reason.

-m

Maurice,

Its been my experience that Canon has big issues with lens sample variation. This is why I always try to buy lenses locally, where I can test multiple copies. I have a copy of the 16-35LII that I consider really solid throughout its range. Its not as sharp as my L primes, but one wouldn't expect it to be. Have you sent your 16-35LII in for calibration?

It seems a little strong to imply that anyone who likes the 16-35LII doesn't know what sharp is. The consensus seems to differ with you on this, including such lens afficionados as Hubsand, who I suspect is a more stringent judge of optical quality than either of us.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1635ii_a/c1635ii_a1.html

In my opinion, its a very good lens. Its not quite up to the new Nikon UW, but I also don't want to risk something going wrong with a Frankenstein adapter at a wedding, so its the best we have right now for UWA and its more than good enough IMO.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why every post you make, you can't help but label anyone with a viewpoint other than your own as incompetent, stupid, ignorant, or downright malignant.

BTW, if I haven't said so before, I love the work on your site.

mauriceramirez wrote:
Anyone who thinks the 16-35 is in any way sharp probably hasn't used a 35L or even a cheap 28 f1.8, or any Nikon ultra-wide zoom for that matter. It's a vastly overrated lens.

I have the 16-35 (both versions) and use it only as a last resort. I used to have a 17-40 an for those on a budget, it IS a better value as long as its paired with a faster, sharp prime.

I haven't had the pleasure of using the Tamron but from the looks of it can only be better than the Canon when all factors are totaled up.

While it does have some strengths, Canon's got a bad rep for relative zoom sharpness and there's a reason.

-m

Sounds like you got a bad apple. While my 16-35 isn't as sharp as my Zeiss 28 or 24L, it is sharper than most lenses I've owned in its range, Canon or otherwise. But like I said I have to go to an exotic prime to get anything sharper.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

Evan Baines wrote:\
I'm at a bit of a loss as to why every post you make, you can't help but label anyone with a viewpoint other than your own as incompetent, stupid, ignorant, or downright malignant.


You're absolutely right. I have some kind of love/hate-gear thing going on, and tend to overstate my opinions when they go against the mainstream opinion. After all it's just equipment so I just rip into it, with the purpose being that Canon makes improvements. Don't mean to diminish or ridicule the actual people who use it but that's exactly what I sound like sometimes. Sorry about that. Thanks for the attitude check. =)

Anyway, that's OT. My personal experience with the 16-35 is such that for most photographers in real-world use the ROI is not worth it.

-m

This is what I hate so much...why can't Canon produce a lens without all the shortcomings mentioned above? I'v even thought of going to the Olympus Om Zuiko wide primes with an adaptor to use on my 5D.These amazing Olympus lenses are many years old but deliver absolute sharpness and contrast. (read about the OLy Om 21mm f3.5 over on the alternative equipment forum). Even some of their zooms are better than canon but you lose autofocus of course.
The main thing I have learnt over there is this: if you want a really sharp wide lens you have to forget about Canon. I have been reading a lot about the Mamiya 6 and 7 series Mf rangefinder film cameras that have amazing lenses with no distortion but are extremely sharp right to the edges. There doesn't seem to be any talk about variation of quality between copies either.

Canon wide angle lenses are a joke .. terrible CA, corner softness, and barrel distortions are present in the whole lot of them. Unusable for critical applications.

I look at some of the slides produced by my wide angle Pentax 67 lenses, or my Schneider SA LF lenses and the Canon's are horrible by comparison. Whoever is at the wheel at Canon's wide angle R&D should be hung, drawn, & quartered.

The 16-35 2.8 is a poor lens, the 17-40 is worse. Consumer grade optics in a nice package. Pitiful waste of money.

The one exception being the 10-22, which has acceptable (but still poor) performance.

The 16-35 only goes to 2.8, and is very large & heavy - plus the older version is a poor performer (for the dough). Consider one of the fast primes and a 17-40 for run & gun. I really like what comes out of the 24L, 28/1.8, and 35L ... pick your favorite focal length, then tame the beast (my pick is the 24, but that's my shooting style)

Someone mentioned that 10-22 ... agree, it's a good one ... to bad it's only efs

Just bought my 16-35, it'll be here next Tues. Can't wait!

Matt Veldhuis wrote:
Just bought my 16-35, it'll be here next Tues. Can't wait!

Ignore the critics, it is a fine lens, and you will certainly be happy with it. It is a heck of a lot of fun to use, MK1 or 2.