bikewithadam wrote:
Plus the 16-35 is significantly larger than the 17-40, and while that may be good for gear envy, I count that as a slight mark against when it comes to practical usage because I travel a lot. But for others who don't it may not matter.
Hmm.....you seem to consider less than 10% difference in volume between those two lenses significant ? Granted, the 16-35 is 26% (125g) heavier than the 17-40.....would you call that difference "significant" too ?
bikewithadam wrote:
The 16-35 is worth it if you're someone like a reporter shooting wide open, handheld and at wide angles. Then the extra stop is indispensible. It's not ridiculous, it's just logical.
I didn't comment on that part of your statement BTW. You mentioned it is not as sharp and not worth the extra stop. That is the part that is ridiculous because it is as sharp as the 17-40mm or even sharper. You too may have had a copy that was not up to par. The extra stop is important to any photographer, not just a reporter. I shoot weddings and the extra stop is a necessity. When lighting is poor and/or minimal that f/2.8 delivers when an f/4 can't.
Edited by Liquidpics on May 06, 2006 at 06:09 AM GMT
Liquidpics, seeing you've got a grip on both your cameras you might want to consider getting a grip on yourself too ;-). No use abusing others like that simply because you disagree, at least in my humble opinion. Words like "ridiculous" and "end of story" etc. don't really work in generating support for your ideas? Who knows, there is more to the truth than you know?
Gregoire,
I'm not abusing anyone?!? I'm sharing my experience and observations. I just don't care for blanket statements and destroying the reputation of a great lens based on one test. That is my humble opinion. If it makes you happy I'll amend my responses.
Liquidpics, that's OK by me. It just seemed that way, you know, you being so absolutely sure and kind of saying other opinions were BS.
I'm thinking about this lens too. First got to have the 50 1.4, then the 24-70 2.8, next probably both the 70-200 f/4 AND the f/2.8 IS. After those - still doubting wether the 16-35 or 17-40 would make a good addition or wether I should get some primes. Borrow a prime every now and then and it is just great to shoot with them. So for me, having a forum like this is a great way to read other people's thoughts - both the good and the bad and the ugly ;-)
Dennis,
Perhaps, that was a blanket statement on my part. I'll retract that from my comments. I was just trying to drive my point home. I got carried away. I apologize if I upset anyone.
Emile,
I had a very sharp copy of the 16-35mm (sold to fund my 85L). I KNOW if the people had tried a good copy, they would literally see things differently. The problem is that there are so many good and bad copies out there that it's frustrating to hear about basically terrible performance from a lens when you know the opposite is available. Canon's Q.C. is ultimately to blame.
I've had good copys of the 16-35 and the 17-40....the 10-22 blows them away. Sharp wide
open and killer at f8. This lens is one of the reasons I have 2 1.6 crop bodys.
Liquidpics, exactly! It doesn't stop to amaze me to see these huge differences in otherwise great lenses. Same for the 24-70. One would think there would be this final check with pretty high standards, especially for L-glass: the Japanese practically invented QC!
trenchmonkey wrote:
I've had good copys of the 16-35 and the 17-40....the 10-22 blows them away. Sharp wide
open and killer at f8. This lens is one of the reasons I have 2 1.6 crop bodys.
I have the 17-40 and the 10-22. You are so right about this lens. The 10-22 is one amazing jewel of a lens, so sharp and clean with beautiful colors. It is so well corrected too.
I would agree with all of the praise for the 10-22 - I would also add that for some strange reason this lens tends to handle skies better than the 17-40 I used in the same or similar situations. Photos taken with the 10-22 had deep saturated skies that almost looked as if they had been shot with a polarizer (which they were not) whereas the shots from the 17-40 tended to have much blander washed out skies.
I've never had a chance to shoot with the 16-36mm so I can't comment on that lens as compared to the 10-22.
I have been thinking about getting a 16-35 and in reading this thread and some other threads here and elsewhere I see allusions to the date code. Is there supposedly some date code (UTO8?) past which the 16-35 lenses are all (or the vast majority) are good copies and prior to that date it was a real hit or miss purchase? I would likely purchase new but on the chance that there is something to this I would like to be on the lookout for a newer lens.
Just look at the lens review of the 16-35mm here on FM. There is definetly a pattern of consistent praise for the lens from UT08 onward. BH photo carries new stock all the time. You can't go wrong with them.
Liquidpics wrote:
-Ridiculous.(frustrated here) That's is exactly what's being done- uncovering bad copies. The 16-35mm prior to date code UT08 was hit or miss. The copies after UTO8 (just read the reviews here) were sharp wide open throughout the entire focal range. The test is simply inaccurate and no way reflects a good copy of the 16-35mm which out performs both the 17-40L and the 10-22. It's funny how the people that haven't actually tried the lens or can't afford to obtain one always tend to bash it. They dismiss any positive reviews, just dwelling in the negative. The glass will always be half empty for them.
Edited by Liquidpics on May 06, 2006 at 06:29 AM GMT...Show more →
Okay. My date code is UT02XX. I haven't actually done serious tests with the lens and now I'm thinking I probably really should. Since I still fall in that "stupid newbie" category. Will a patient experienced photog give me some pointers in what I need to do?
I figure I'll do the following steps:
1.) Set up tripod. (I drink too much caffeine)
2.) Pick an ISO (100? 400?).
3.) Set Mirror Lockup. (avoid camera shake)
4.) Set to AV (let it determine shutter speed.)
5.) Set lens to 16 mm.
6.) Start at f2.8 and work up to f/11 taking the same shot over and over.
7.) Change lens to 35mm and repeat step 6.
8.) Pixel peep for sharpness.
Liquidpics wrote:
Just look at the lens review of the 16-35mm here on FM. There is definetly a pattern of consistent praise for the lens from UT08 onward. BH photo carries new stock all the time. You can't go wrong with them.
This seems to be a firmly entrenched belief on the web - but I haven't seen any real evidence of it myself. I definately wouldn't use FM reviews as quantitative evidence. (Another place I read something about a complete redesign, etc - I simply don't buy it.)
I agree with previous posters regarding the cost/benefit - if you need F2.8 then pay the extra to get the 16-35, if not, the 17-40. From what I have seen the performance of the two are extremely close. And, I have seen a lot of good (and bad) examples posted of each.
But, I would be interested in seeing some of your tests of the 17-40 vs the 16-35 on full frame. I'm ready to be convinced and I'm sure some others are as well...
Keith Wong wrote:
From the MTF's, the 10-22 > 17-40L > 16-35L. Which is interesting, given that Canon's own data indicates that the most expensive lens is the poorest performer.
No, i think Canon just used a bad copy of the 16-35 when they did the MTF's
I recently ordered a 17-40L. It showed up and did not auto focus at all and had a couple large peices of junk inside. The company I ordered from exchanged it no problem and I just received my new lense.
I ran a few tests shooting 2 differant brick walls from F4 to F8 and at 17 and 40mm, mirror lockup and tripod mounted.
Every test the whole left edge goes soft. Im not angry with the reseller but this is getting old. Im not trying to obtain the best copy in the world, I just want one that is normal or standard!
I was going to post the results but why. Its soft on the left and nothing is going to change that. I will have to send it back and wait for another again.
I apologize if I upset anyone.