17-40 f/4 vs 16-35 f/2.8

[FotoPhreak]

All you L-guru's out there, you will be please to know that you have converted another photographer into only considering L-glass.

What is kind of strange and probably a first for you all, is that you have converted me before I have even purchased a body let alone a lense.

Anyway, I have discussed the body debate (300D vs 10D) in other posts, so this one is dedicated to lenses.

My questions are as follows:

1. What sort of photography am I limiting myself to if I chose a higher (or lower, not quite sure how you describe it) aperture lense such as the f/4 17-40 over the f/2.8 16-35, and f/4 & f/2.8 70-200 lenses?

I have a rudementary level of knowledge of what aperture is and how it works, but little practicle experience. So if you know of any online photography learning resources, or sample picture galleries which are good illustrations as to the differences, I would love to know.

Practicle descriptions of what I would see through one vs the other would be extremely helpful.

2. Also, is it worth paying the extra $230 USD for the 50mm f/1.4 over the 50mm f/1.8?

3. With the 70-200mm and other IS lenses, how much benefit is there in purchasing this additional feature?

Again, any visual or practicle examples would be extremely helpful.

Thanks all.

[DaveG]

"1. What sort of photography am I limiting myself to if I chose a higher (or lower, not quite sure how you describe it) aperture lense such as the f/4 17-40 over the f/2.8 16-35, and f/4 & f/2.8 70-200 lenses?"

You get to use a higher shutter speed (one stop) with the 2.8 over the 4. It may not sound like much but that stop can be the difference between freezing action and having a blur.

With the 16-35 it might be that you are trying to do a candid available light shot inside and youd have a choice of 1/60 @ f2.8 with the 16-35 or 1/30 @ f4 with the 17-40. That 1/30 might just not be enough to freeze the motion, while 1/60 could.

With the longer lens it might be the difference in freezing action at a hockey game with 1/500 of a second at f2.8 or blurring it with 1/250 of second @ f4.


"2. Also, is it worth paying the extra $230 USD for the 50mm f/1.4 over the 50mm f/1.8?"

To me it was. The 50 f1.4 is two stops faster than f2.8 - and one stop faster than the 50 mm 1.8 - and this gives me one or two higher shutter speeds, on a lens with a little bit of reach since on the 10D the 50 is effectively an 80 mm lens. F2.8 is better than f4, but sometimes f2.8 isn't good enough.

"3. With the 70-200mm and other IS lenses, how much benefit is there in purchasing this additional feature?"

It helps.

You will read that the IS lenses will give two or three more stops of "hand holdabilty". Very simply this means that if you have a 250 mm lens you shouldn't hand hold it below 1/focal length (1/250) or your muscle tone will shake the camera and you'll get blur even if the subject is motionless. With IS you can drop that down two stops (1/60) or three (1/30) - depending on which IS version it is.

But for sports shots it you can't use these slower shutter speeds since the subject motion remains constant with or without an IS lens. You still need a high shutter speed to freeze that action. But at 1/500 WITH IS, that shot will still be sharper than 1/500 without IS.

When the subject is NOT moving then you can drop down the shutterspeed those "permitted" stops.

[FotoPhreak]

Cheers Dave, very helpful.

[FotoPhreak]

DaveG wrote:

"2. Also, is it worth paying the extra $230 USD for the 50mm f/1.4 over the 50mm f/1.8?"

To me it was. The 50 f1.4 is two stops faster than f2.8 - and one stop faster than the 50 mm 1.8 - and this gives me one or two higher shutter speeds, on a lens with a little bit of reach since on the 10D the 50 is effectively an 80 mm lens. F2.8 is better than f4, but sometimes f2.8 isn't good enough.

Can anyone give me some examples of practicle shots I would miss out on by not having the 1.4?

Or to think of it the other way, what, other than technical, advantages are there in getting the 1.4?

[DaveG]

FotoPhreak wrote:
DaveG wrote:

"2. Also, is it worth paying the extra $230 USD for the 50mm f/1.4 over the 50mm f/1.8?"

To me it was. The 50 f1.4 is two stops faster than f2.8 - and one stop faster than the 50 mm 1.8 - and this gives me one or two higher shutter speeds, on a lens with a little bit of reach since on the 10D the 50 is effectively an 80 mm lens. F2.8 is better than f4, but sometimes f2.8 isn't good enough.

Can anyone give me some examples of practicle shots I would miss out on by not having the 1.4?

Or to think of it the other way, what, other than technical, advantages are there in getting the 1.4?

It straight out depends on the light levels. I might want to use the 50 to shoot basketball in a high school gym. If the exposure is 1/500 @ f2 with ISO 1600 (which is typical by the way) then the 50 mm f1.8 would be fine. But with a 50 f1.4 I could either increase the shutterspeed by a stop to 1/1000 or I could drop the ISO down to 800 - which might be a better idea.

If the gym is one stop darker then I would go to 1/500 @ f1.4 with ISO 1600, and I just couldn't do this with the 1.8 short of using ISO 3200 which, shall we say, ain't that good.

Another scenario would could be a candid, available light photograph of a child. The light level is low but I could get 1/125 @ f1.4 with ISO 1600. But I'd need 1/60 if all I could do is to open up to f1.8 and that might not freeze the child's movements.

All of this depends on using the lens wide open. You get very little depth of field at either f1.8 or f1.4. At f8 the depth of field of both of these lenses will be identical. If your style of photography requires speed in this focal length, then the 50 f1.4 fills an important niche. If you don't need this speed, then save some money and get the 50 f1.8 - preferably the older one with the metal mounting ring.

[FotoPhreak]

You mentioned children and speed ...

Should I be able to catch children running with the 1.8?

Or do I really need to get the 1.4?

[intensesupernova]

You can catch them with a 1.4

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

[droosan]

FotoPhreak wrote:
2. Also, is it worth paying the extra $230 USD for the 50mm f/1.4 over the 50mm f/1.8?


Why I bought a 50/1.4 and love it:

The 50/1.4 has, most importantly to me, faster focusing, for two reasons. 1) It lets in more light to the sensor so the camera can find focus in low light faster. 2) The motor is more powerful.

Also, the glass is better. This is a theoretical advantage rather than one that I have visually experienced.

Also, it is a 58mm filter-size which is what many pro-sumer EF lenses are.

[gogo]

17-40 is a newer lens and its build for digital.take the 50mm 1.4 because all reviews I see its say better than 50mm 1.8.

[vvizard]

FotoPhreak wrote:
You mentioned children and speed ...

Should I be able to catch children running with the 1.8?

Or do I really need to get the 1.4?

You tell you have decided on L-glass even before buying the body. Well, I might tell you something then, cause I've been in your position =) I even bought the 50mm f/1.4 before my house :) I couldn't afford them both at once, so I had the option of either buying one, then wait another month for the next sallery, and get the other. I would die if I had a "naked" house, so I bought the lens first. Why did I buy it?

Because at the time I was probably one of the biggest measurebators around. Coming from many-many years computer-background into photography. Of course I had to "go with the numbers" =) But do I regret it now? Not at all.. 1.8 is probably just fine. But believe me, this lens cost so little compared to most other lenses (specially if you're going L-only) that in very short time you won't remember those $200 bucks anyway. And to be honest with you, you'll probably never have more than $200 on your bank-account for more than a few days in a row from here on =) As soon as money starts to pile up, there's always a new lens with your name on it ;)

[DaveG]

FotoPhreak wrote:
You mentioned children and speed ...

Should I be able to catch children running with the 1.8?

Or do I really need to get the 1.4?

Be clear that the 1.8 and the 1.4 have nothing to do with freezing action. The shutterspeed freezes action. What the 1.4 does is it allows you to get one stop more light to the "film" than the 1.8 will. Since you need to balance the equation so to speak you can increase the shutterspeed by a stop to compensate.

Now if it's a sunny afternoon and your exposure is 1/500 @ f8, the 1.4/1.8 of the respective lens doesn't mean a thing. The only time it is important is when you get a lower light level and you are still trying to keep a high shutterspeed.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Fotophreak,..

Just going to offer some counter advice here :D :D :D

Yes,. the larger aperture lenses have ther advantages.

But in both cases the lenses you refer to I personally do not feel that in either case the difference in aperture is worht the price difference UNLESS you have specific need for that speed with a particular lens.

I own both the 17-40mm f/4 and the 50mm f/1.8

Never have I wished that they were faster versions in the months (nearly a year for the 50mm) that I have owned them.

remeber.. with wider lenses,. the shutter speed you require can be lower,. in most cases you will need no more than 1/125 to stop action.

Lastly the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is approx 2/3rds of one stop,. so the 50mm f/1.4 does not offer a full stop.

[DaveG]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Fotophreak,..

Just going to offer some counter advice here :D :D :D

Yes,. the larger aperture lenses have ther advantages.

But in both cases the lenses you refer to I personally do not feel that in either case the difference in aperture is worht the price difference UNLESS you have specific need for that speed with a particular lens.

I own both the 17-40mm f/4 and the 50mm f/1.8

Never have I wished that they were faster versions in the months (nearly a year for the 50mm) that I have owned them.

remeber.. with wider lenses,. the shutter speed you require can be lower,. in most cases you will need no more than 1/125 to stop action.

Lastly the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is approx 2/3rds of one stop,. so the 50mm f/1.4 does not offer a full stop.

Ah, but speed is like horsepower. You'll never know when you need it. And if it's not there, it's not there. I have the 50 f1.4 and the 16-35 f2.8 so I guess I voted with my money.

[FotoPhreak]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Fotophreak,..

Just going to offer some counter advice here :D :D :D

Yes,. the larger aperture lenses have ther advantages.

But in both cases the lenses you refer to I personally do not feel that in either case the difference in aperture is worht the price difference UNLESS you have specific need for that speed with a particular lens.

I own both the 17-40mm f/4 and the 50mm f/1.8

Never have I wished that they were faster versions in the months (nearly a year for the 50mm) that I have owned them.

remeber.. with wider lenses,. the shutter speed you require can be lower,. in most cases you will need no more than 1/125 to stop action.

Lastly the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is approx 2/3rds of one stop,. so the 50mm f/1.4 does not offer a full stop.

Thanks very much CDS!

Once again, I have been completely thrown into reverse and spinning around the track.

Mind you, I think what you are saying is very smart/logical ... especially in terms ocf getting a 1st lense.

[BearSummer]

Hi FotoPhreak,

The difference between the 50 1.8 and the 50 1.4, are plastic vs metal mount, platicy construction, manual focus by twisting the front of the barrel instead of using a focssing ring, no distance scale of the 1.8 which makes using hyperfocal distance much harder, 1.8 is micro motor not usm like the 1.4, 1.4 has ftm so you can manually focus whilst still in autofocus without having to flick the switch, 2/3rd of a stop slower and therfore the minimum depth of field will be deeper. Ok its not going to be a lot deeper, but if you are messing with shallow dof then it may make the difference.

Is it worth the difference... well its in my bag.

Best Regards

BearSummer

[defordphoto]

Another cog in the wheel:

1. Not a huge limit, but I'd definitely and without hesitation go for the faster galss if you can afford it. The 16-35L f2.8 is next on my hit list.

2. No. The 50mm f1.8 is $60 USD and is one of the sharpest lenses available. The 1.4 does not offer $230 more advantage. Sure the 1.8 is a cheapie lens. So what? It breaks? Just buy a new one. I have one each for both my cameras.

3. IS: Very, very useful. The L lens IS has two modes. Vertical (I) and horizontal (II). Mode II is awesome, even when shooting at slower speeds when panning. You will get the sharp shot even at slower speeds of 1/60-1/125. Also, as an aside, in sports shooting some blur is acceptable and many, many times preferrable to accentuate movement and action. Freezing the action has its merits too, but I love motion-blur when applied properly. It can add a lot of intrigue into a shot. I have panned as slow as 1/15 and got some pretty neat stuff from it.

I will add that it's neat to see you doing all this research before purchasing a huge bagfull of stuff anfd then coming here in freak-out mode wondering what the heck you bought! :)

[RichardtheSane]

On the subject of 50mm F1.8...

I have had my 50mm F1.8 since 1994 when I got my first EOS, and with it I have done a lot of low light hand held work (I mean REALLY low light, dark and dodgy rock clubs mainly) - never have I wanted or needed a faster lens. Mine is the original 50mm 1.8, metal mount and noisey standard AF (but still very quick!). A while back I nearly got the 50mm F1.4 but then I thought - why do I need it? I didn't.
For $65 get the 50mm F1.8 and spend the extra cash on some good filters for the rest of your gear. If you find you need a faster lens then buy it, you havn't wasted much by getting the 1.8 :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

P.S,.. I have nothing against the 50mm f/1.4 :)

I rarely have a fixed 50mm on my camera,. I mean VERY rarely... so why for me its a no brainer... why spend $200.00 more on lens that will spend so little time on my cmaera. When I do need it,. it is there (and it is amazing what a quality peice of glass it is for $65.00)

I think ANYONE who is in the market for a 50mm should get the f/1.8 unless they KNOW that they will be using the 50mm prime a lot,.. at $65.00,.. just get it,. and have it,. and IF you do find yourself using it a lot,. and IF you do feel you are compromised by the plastic and cheesy manual focus,. then decide whether it is worth another $200.00 for the f/1.4

[Andy_T]

FotoPhreak wrote:

Should I be able to catch children running with the 1.8?



To catch running children, I'd strongly advocate to get the 70-200 f/2.8 L.

It's big and heavy enough for that.

The 1.8/50 doesn't have the stopping power. They'll get up again after you hit them and run away :)

Regards,
Andy