Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 end

Archive 2016 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

karlfoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

Hi Forum

I have a 24 is usm lens, 40mm stm and also a 17 ts-e lens.

I usually use the 17 for the architecture, and the 24 and 40 for my backpacking trips because of the size and weight.

However, I need to get some images where i need wider than the 24 (wf shot, and i cant step back), and am loath to take the 17ts-e because of the bulk and weight of the lens.

Taking the 16-35 (615g) instead of the 17, 24 and 40 (1332g) makes huge sense ito weight and ease of use while hiking, however the 17 would only be used on the tripod while tenting and the 24 used while actual hiking, is a nice small package in the bag on the hip ( bigger bag is bulky and prevents good tensioning of the waist strap).

How good is the 16-35 verses these other lenses that i have? Is the potability of the 24 going to pale ito the iq and flexibility of the 16-35?

ps i also like the sun-stars on the 16-35.

Thanx

Apr 07, 2016 at 02:10 AM

eyal.ma
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

The 16-35 is a great lens. I don't know what body you are using, but the 16-35 is pretty sharp, has IS, overall a very capable lens.
But.
You lose all the ts-e functionality, the 40 pancake is extremely small in comparison and the 24mm is light, and the last 2 have one extra stop and shallower DoF in times you want to use it.

Pros and cons, to be honest, are very personal.

Personally when I go hiking I take a 5D+16-35+24-70. The body and one of the lenses is on me, and the second lens in the bag.

Apr 07, 2016 at 02:31 AM

NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

You can always try to stitch several 24mm or 40mm frames together. I know it doesn't work in every situation, but it can work in some.

Apr 07, 2016 at 05:46 AM

alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

karlfoto wrote:
How good is the 16-35 verses these other lenses that i have?

They are quite similar in image quality.

karlfoto wrote:
Is the potability of the 24 going to pale ito the iq and flexibility of the 16-35?

I would miss the portability of the 24 and 40 for a bag on the hip.

Apr 07, 2016 at 06:19 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

Kinda depends on how you like to carry / work.

While I certainly can change lenses, my work flow when hiking really can switch around a lot while getting different takes on a scene / location / subject. For that reason, I prefer to hike with the zoom, usually accompanied by one or two primes (macro, 24L TS-E or a mid tele) ... kinda depends on the location / expectation, but I really don't use my TS-E for hiking as much since I got the 16-35/4 IS. Granted this means no TS, but the size/weight of the TS-E often gets replaced by something else (i.e. macro).

Other times, I just roll with the 16-35/4 and the 100-400L IS II and let my feet / crop fill the middle. And if I'm planning to do some close foreground - background all in focus stuff, then I'm back to the TS.

I just think it really depends on what your anticipation / agenda / output is regarding how you gear up. That said, if I'm really wanting to go light and still have respectable quality and versatility ... Panny FZ1000 (just gotta know it only goes so wide, but stitches okay).

Apr 07, 2016 at 06:33 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

Hi Karl,

Here's a summary of my experience with the EF 16-35/4L IS and some of the other "usual suspects", for scenic photography at f/8 and near-infinity focus distance.

The 16-35/4L IS is slightly better than the TS-E 17/4L and Zeiss 18/3.5 ZE, although the TS-E has movements and the ZE is smaller.

EF 16-35/4L IS test images https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1313373/0#12531288

The 24/2.8 IS USM is very much on-par with the TS-E 24/3.5L II (except for the movements),

24mm EF 24/2.8 IS vs TS-E 24/3.5L II (Gunzorro), https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1270343/
[my shots] https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1270343/1#12104421

At 24mm and 25mm, the Zeiss 25/2 ZE is slightly better than the EF 16-35/4 L IS, 24-70/2.8 L II, and TS-E 24/3.5 L II.

Comparison of Zeiss 25/2 ZE and Canon L lenses https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1403832

At 35mm and 40mm, the EF 40/2.8 STM is on-par with the Zeiss 35/2 ZE and Contax 35-70/3.4, and these three are slightly better than the EF 16-35/4L IS and EF 24-70/2.8 L II USM (but not by much).

Apr 07, 2016 at 06:47 AM

hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

For full frame, I'm a total fanboy of Canon's 16-35 f/4L IS. Superb optics, even wide open. A solid IS function. More resistant to flare than earlier 16-35 designs. One of the finest zooms Canon ever made. It is my "go to" lens for landscape, architecture, events, walking around, even environmental portraits--and I own a variety of high-dollar lenses I could use instead.

Apr 07, 2016 at 08:15 AM

Robin Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

I'd get the 16-35 f4 IS, no question. It's really good and very nice to handle and on the camera.

I'm afraid your view of the 17mm TSE is not uncommon (too big, end up not taking it). These are aspirational lenses that unless you are taking a lot of tilt shift pics are an expensive luxury. I rent these if I ever I need them.

Once you get the 16-35mm you will wonder why you keep the 24mm f2.8. I have both and wonder myself (I got it before the 16-35mm came out).

Apr 07, 2016 at 09:26 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

Robin Smith wrote:
...Once you get the 16-35mm you will wonder why you keep the 24mm f2.8. I have both and wonder myself (I got it before the 16-35mm came out).

I sold mine.

Apr 07, 2016 at 09:29 AM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

In my brief use of the 16-35/4 IS CPS loaner, I found it to be sharper than the 17TSE, very apparent but not devastatingly so. I was really surprised how sharp the lens was at the wide end and into the image corners.

Yes, you lose the movements of the TS, but for me it is mostly the shift feature, and I'm pretty adept at keeping things straight or leaving enough room around the subject to use LR corrections to perspective.

I'd get the 16-35 and leave those other lenses at home. And I'm a guy that loves his 24 IS!

The 16-35 is so good, that Canon should think about a matched set featuring a revisiting 35-140mm f/4 IS model!

Apr 07, 2016 at 09:37 AM

alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

Gunzorro wrote:
The 16-35 is so good, that Canon should think about a matched set featuring a revisiting 35-140mm f/4 IS model!

Man, that would be a lens for me!

Apr 07, 2016 at 09:44 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

Gunzorro wrote:
...The 16-35 is so good, that Canon should think about a matched set featuring a revisiting 35-140mm f/4 IS model!

I'd be happy with an EF 35-105/4L IS.

Apr 07, 2016 at 09:47 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

The 16-35mm f/4L IS is an excellent lens. I take it into the backcountry frequently.

Dan

karlfoto wrote:
Hi Forum

I have a 24 is usm lens, 40mm stm and also a 17 ts-e lens.

I usually use the 17 for the architecture, and the 24 and 40 for my backpacking trips because of the size and weight.

However, I need to get some images where i need wider than the 24 (wf shot, and i cant step back), and am loath to take the 17ts-e because of the bulk and weight of the lens.

Taking the 16-35 (615g) instead of the 17, 24 and 40 (1332g) makes huge sense ito weight and ease of use while hiking, however...Show more →

Apr 07, 2016 at 10:12 AM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

jcolwell wrote:
I'd be happy with an EF 35-105/4L IS.

After already making a compact and useful 24-105L, if Canon were to develop a 35-XXX lens it seems like a bit of a short-change effort to restrict the zoom range at 105mm. 140mm at least gives a broader range.

Or, go for a 35-105/2.8L IS!

I used to own the old FD 35-105, and that was f/3.5 for the entire range.

(Canon, I'm available for hire!)

Apr 07, 2016 at 01:07 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

Gunzorro wrote:
In my brief use of the 16-35/4 IS CPS loaner, I found it to be sharper than the 17TSE, very apparent but not devastatingly so. I was really surprised how sharp the lens was at the wide end and into the image corners.

Yes, you lose the movements of the TS, but for me it is mostly the shift feature, and I'm pretty adept at keeping things straight or leaving enough room around the subject to use LR corrections to perspective.

I'd get the 16-35 and leave those other lenses at home. And I'm a guy that loves his 24...Show more →

I was surprised by your statement that 16-35 f4 is sharper than ts17 - so I looked it up-
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=949&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=487&APIComp=2&CT=AVG

It confirms that 16-35 f4 is sharper than TS17 but mostly at wide open (where I rarely use it) and marginally so at f8. It also confirms that 16-35 has marginally less astigmatism but that at f11 the ts17 the astigmatism is alleviated.

That said, I take pictures near trees and the 16-35L requires you to either have bowed trees, throw away 1/3 of your image or apply lots of perspective correction, which likely cause the effective resolution to be significantly less than the TS17.

Personally I carry ts17 (for the shift to remove bowed trees), 1.4x to change the ts17 to Ts24, and 24-105 when I hike. At 17mm the trees need bowing correction. At 24mm the 1.4/17 does well and the rest is covered by my 24-105. Function is more important to me than iq given how well the ts17 and 24--105 perform. But I agree if you want to get by with a uwa zoom, the 16-35 f4 is really good if you don't have any near trees.

Apr 07, 2016 at 07:27 PM

kylebarendrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

If I'm carrying two lenses it will be the 16-35 f/4L and the 70/200 f/4L. If I want to fill the gap I'll add a 50mm prime for hiking but those two lenses cover a lot for a relatively light kit. If I expect to see wildlife I'll replace the 70-200 with a 100-400.

I may add my Samyang 14/2.8 and/or 24/1.4 if I expect to shoot the Milky Way.

Apr 07, 2016 at 07:38 PM

karlfoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

Nice responses thanx for putting the effort for a question that has clearly been mulled over a lot. The image comparisons were very useful, so thanx to jcolwell and gunzorro.

I had forgotten about the zeiss 18mm because of the all the bad press it receives, so that needs to go into the mix.

Mmmm...so the 24 and 40 that i have are good quality lenses, nice and small. So I need something wider, the 16-35 is 'slightly' better than the 17 ts-e (I use if for architectural shoots and for scenic work when i dont have to walk huge distances from the car) but does not have shift which is not an issue for mountain photography.
They are similar size and bulk, but the 16-35 is more versatile and has good sun-stars for those occasional sun rise and sets.

Then the 18mm seems to be pretty good and is less bulky than the 16-35 and 17 ts-e. However at 510g it is not light, so including the 24 and 40, that would weigh in at 953 vs 615g for the 16-35f4. I think that it is just the bulk of the 16-35 that is putting me off right now.

The sun-stars spikes on the ZE18 don't seem to be as tight as the 16-35f4. Any images of sunstars that you can share, I only managed to find one image.

Alternatively, put the camera in the vertical plane with the 24 is and carefully do a three shot pan and stitch. However, with clouds moving in the twilight sky, and multiple exposures for the DR x this by three. It is a pain for post, though i have done it before. Any idea what fov you would get with this option?

Any issues with decentered elements on the 16-35f4?

Apr 07, 2016 at 11:37 PM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

Scott Stoness wrote:
I was surprised by your statement that 16-35 f4 is sharper than ts17 - so I looked it up-
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=949&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=487&APIComp=2&CT=AVG

It confirms that 16-35 f4 is sharper than TS17 but mostly at wide open (where I rarely use it) and marginally so at f8. It also confirms that 16-35 has marginally less astigmatism but that at f11 the ts17 the astigmatism is alleviated.

That said, I take pictures near trees and the 16-35L requires you to either have bowed trees, throw away 1/3 of your image or apply lots of perspective correction, which likely cause the effective resolution to be significantly less...Show more →

Scott -- I didn't want to imply the 17TSE has bad image quality, it doesn't. But there is a definite, if very slight, sharpness edge to the 16-35/4 IS. As you say, there is no substitute for the 17's movements, and why it is one of my favorite lenses.

Apr 08, 2016 at 12:47 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

karlfoto wrote:
...Mmmm...so the 24 and 40 that i have are good quality lenses, nice and small. So I need something wider,...

My "small lens kit" is SMCP-M 20/4, EF 40/2.8 STM, CV 75/2.5, CZ 100/3.5, SMCP-M 135/3.5, and Oly 200/4 OM. Optically, they're all excellent performers. The Oly 21/3.5 OM has slightly better edges and corners than the SMCP-M 20/4, but otherwise the Pentax is noticably better, and has totally acceptable edges and corners.

karlfoto wrote:
Alternatively, put the camera in the vertical plane with the 24 is and carefully do a three shot pan and stitch. ... Any idea what fov you would get with this option?

With a 9mm overlap (about one-third of the image width), it's equivalent to 17mm AOV and the aspect ratio (AR) is 1.5 (same as a single unshifted image). If you shift up and down (or in this case, rotate the lens; ideally about its entrance pupil) the AOV is equivalent to a 12mm unshifted lens, and the AR is about 2.6.

karlfoto wrote:
Any issues with decentered elements on the 16-35f4?

None that I've heard of.

Apr 08, 2016 at 06:42 AM

willis
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

More and more we see high quality lenses tetsted on high MP sensors where the mid zones or centre sharpness is compromised a little to provide evenesss across the frame. I imagine there is a big element of this in the 17 TSE design. A pin sharp centre and mush at the FF edges aint much use in a TS. Obviously it's a highly specialized lens but can hold its own against the newest zooms if stopped down just a little.

Apr 08, 2016 at 08:29 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

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