17-35f2.8L vs. 16-35 f2.8L??

[That One Guy]

Plain and simple.....which one is better?

I own the 17-35 f2.8L right now.....and it stands as both the lens I need the most and the one I hate the @##$$#@!! most as well!!!



I tell you, today I had to use it to get crowd shots at a Bucks game....and I was up in the corner of the Bradley Center where I was both manually focusing and "One Shot" auto focusing....(using my 10D), and boy did I feel like spiking the darn thing!

I am so sick and tired of getting butter knief sharp pics with that thing but getting razor sharp pics with my primes! .....some times, my primes are actually too sharp! I will never have to worry about this problem with that P.O.S. Oh, I was bracketing between 30th and 60th....and f4-f5.6 at 800iso.. Tonight my assignment was to get crowd shots so I had to turn in nice looking photos for publication... I have them up-loading right now as I type...

Anyway, I am already planning on buying some new primes... like the 20mm f2.8, the 24mm f2.8 the 28mm f2.8 and the 35mm f2.0.......or I will just get the 24mm f1.4L and the 35mm f1.4L......haven't decided yet but, having a zoom is important in the work that I do. I already know that Sigma's 15-30 stinks......I'd say it is at least as bad as the lens I own......and years ago, I borrowed a Tamron 20-40.........hated it! I am a Canon only guy.....and respect that wide lenses.....especially zoooooms tend to be a little on the crappy side when compared to my other lenses I love to use.

So, is getting the upgrade worth it or should I not bother??

I'll see if I can post a pic or two... (I have to get permission first.....it's a press credentials thing)

JP

[ilya]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/17_35VS16_35/

Or seriously consider the 17-40L.

[photography By Evangelos]

If you have the 17-35 f2.8 L the new one in not worth the upgrade stay with the older canon lens. I tested the 16-35 F2.8 L for me it is not worth the up garde I had a lowner from CPS. Try not to read to much in the all the BS they want to sell lenses. I have had the 17-35 for 5 years now and I loved it a great lens.

[whitema]

I've had the 17-35 for about 3 years now and after my initial excitement with the lens began to lose faith in it and started to wish I had some primes in the same basic range. This happened as a result of reading too many reviews of the 16-35mm f/2.8 and other lenses in that focal length range.

I treated as gospel reviews by retailers, Canon and other lens testers on the web. I was ready to sell the lens and purchase the old EF 20-35mm f/2.8 or get some primes in the same focal lengths as my zoom.

Fortunately, as I usually do, I began my own exhaustive testing of the lens against my 50mm f/1.4 and the 28-105mm f/3.5 - 4.5 zoom I own. I used catalogues from newspapers, tripod, mirror lock up, etc. Then repeated them hand held down to about 1/30 sec.

I then took it to Fletchers Fotographics in Sydney and put it up against my 50mm f/1.4 and a brand new 35mm f/2 prime. Forget the 35mm f/2. It's nowhere near as sharp as the 17-35mm. A very dissapointing prime.This was the opinion of firstly, the staff at thecamera store and also myself.

Having read many fabulous reviews of the 35mm f/2, I went to the store ready to part with the cash assuming I would purchase a superior lens.

I now have a far better opinion of the 17-35mm and it now sits on my 10D as the standard lens. It's great to have a zoom that's really sharp and I can use at f/2.8 in low lit churches for available light shots.

Check out my website:
centralcoastweddings.com.au
Look under photographers then Mark White Photography.

Most of these images were taken with the 17-35mm.

I now shoot with confidence with this lens. After all it's the picture content that's the most important in your images. Lens quality is somewhat secondary. Having said that this lens is more than good enough for the professional use I put it through.

My only problem now is that it can be not quite long enough at times. I'm testing the EF24-70mm f/2.8 against the 17-35mm f/2.8 & the 50mm f/1.4 very soon in the same store. Stand by for further bulletins.

Has anyone done similar tests? What's everyone's opinion of the 28-70 f2.8 vs the 24-70 f/2.8 vs 50 f/1.4, etc.

Yours photographically,

Mark


http://www.centralcoastweddings.com.au/mark_white_photograph
y.htm

[ssim]

I have the 16-35L f2.8 and I really like it. I have handheld is fairly low light and had very good results. I have never had the opportunity to use the 17-35 so I can't speak to it.

I have the 24-70L f2.8 as well. If there is a downside to this lens is the size and weight. It is sharp and quick. A nice lens indeed.

S

[whitema]

Hi Sheldon,

Great images. How are you finding the 24-70.
Have you done any comparisons with other EF lenses?