16-35 mm F2.8L OR 17-40mm F4.0L

[DieselGirl]

Hi guys
Need your advice here. I am going to be shooting a bodybuilding show shortly and probably the most important project of my life so I have to get this one right!
I will be responsible for shooting the athletes before they go on stage. This will be during their preparation time minutes before they go on stage as well as throughout the day. I'd have to guess about 30 athletes or so.
As far as lighting goes, that will not be an issue. I am still juggling around what lens would be best to capture these images. I need all the detail I can pull out of these shots but of course I want them as crisp and sharp as possible. I was going to go the fix focal length to ensure the quality, but these events are hectic and crowded and I won't have the versatility of being able to shoot at any old distance I want so thats why I opted for a zoom.
Am I on the right track?

[Tom W]

If lighting is not an issue, I'd go for the 17-40 myself. Its a good zoom range on the 1.6X sensor.

Both lenses are reputed to be very good. I have first-hand experience with the 17-40 and find it very nice, even in low-light situations.

[drisley]

Personally, I would use the 50F1.8 II.
However, the 17-40F4L would be great too.
Since you are shooting at such a short focal length, you can get away with slower shutter speeds, and to me an extra stop isnt as important with such wide angle lenses.
However, with a zoom, you could also consider the much heralded, and inexpensive, Tamron 28-75 F2.8.
Apparently those that have used both say the Tamron is sharper than the 17-40L at equivalent focal lenghts.

Sounds very exciting btw. I'm possibly on my way to doing the same
thing.

[f8]

what about 24-70, if you are ok for a little distance between you and subject for the close up shots the 70mm at the other end of the zoom range may help with some other shots later in the event, this lens is great, very sharp when wide open

[DieselGirl]

I am surprised that no one has said anything about the 16-35 mm. Perhaps the 17-40 will be more than enough.

I have a few months to decide but I like to be prepared ahead of time.

Keep the comments coming. This is great. Thanks!

[DieselGirl]

Personally, I would use the 50F1.8 II.


I would too but it's going to be difficult as backstage is crowded and there will be times when I have to take a picture wherever I am standing. This is a pro show so there will be a mad rush of press also fighting for photo shots of everyone.

Great suggestion however, I love my 50mm lens.

[Jon]

Backstage is its own world - if you think you need to go wide, you really do. Are the extra speed of the 16, and the extra 10% angular coverage, worth twice the bucks? If it's as important as that, go with the 16-35. You'll be stopping it down more than you would the 17-40, and most lenses are better stopped down 2-3 stops than wide open. I haven't used either, but that would be my inclination.

[Tom W]

I am surprised that no one has said anything about the 16-35 mm. Perhaps the 17-40 will be more than enough.

I have a few months to decide but I like to be prepared ahead of time.

Keep the comments coming. This is great. Thanks!

Everything I've heard puts the 16-35 on par optically with the 17-40, but with one extra stop of light. But, its an expensive stop. I've considered it myself, but ended up with the 17-40 and a 20 mm f/1.8 Sigma. I use the 17-40 a lot more than the Sigma, but I haven't been in too many situations where I need the fast prime (that and this particular Sigma lens has a pretty lousy focus mechanism).

As for the 28-75 Tamron - Its a very well liked lens, but I don't know that 28 is going to be wide enough though. 28 mm on a 1.6X body is essentially a "normal" lens in terms of Field of View.

[natalka]

I own the 16-35, and several times told my assistant that this could be the only lens I use for an entire wedding. Then it started back-focusing, or the camera did. Basically, if I focus on anything more than six feet away, the focus distance is 655m. It also does not focus in low light situations as quickly as the 24-70 L lens does. Since I bought the 24-70, my 16-35 stays in the bag for 3/4 of a wedding day.

Natalka

[DieselGirl]

Money is not an issue. I want to be able to capture THE BEST shots. It's a tough call between these two lenses, but I have to believe that their is more than just an F stop for the big price difference in the two lenses, but I could be wrong.

[DieselGirl]

I own the 16-35, and several times told my assistant that this could be the only lens I use for an entire wedding. Then it started back-focusing, or the camera did. Basically, if I focus on anything more than six feet away, the focus distance is 655m. It also does not focus in low light situations as quickly as the 24-70 L lens does. Since I bought the 24-70, my 16-35 stays in the bag for 3/4 of a wedding day.

Natalka

Thanks for your imput.
Maybe I'll get both!
I have time to make my decision and it's great to hear all angles of opinions. I appreciate it.

[drisley]

If that is the case, I would definately suggest the Canon 24-70 F2.8L unless you know that you really need a super wide angle option.

[DieselGirl]

Decisions, decisions, decision.............................

:roll:

[scottbergerphoto]

The 16-35 is a great landscape lens but I wouldn't use it for shots of people unless for some reason the working distance is very small. I use the 24-70 f/2.8 for close people shots. How are you going to fill the frame with some ripped traps with a 16-35?
Scott

[DieselGirl]

The 16-35 is a great landscape lens but I wouldn't use it for shots of people unless for some reason the working distance is very small. I use the 24-70 f/2.8 for close people shots. How are you going to fill the frame with some ripped traps with a 16-35?
Scott

That's why I posted this! I don't know. I love using fixed focal lengths but I don't think I can get away with it in this case.

[scottbergerphoto]

I like the flexibity to get tight close ups from a reasonable distance. The 16-35 will get you group shots from a close distance but it won't do justice to the body builders. If I had to take one lens, it would be the 24-70.
Scott

[Tom W]

I like the flexibity to get tight close ups from a reasonable distance. The 16-35 will get you group shots from a close distance but it won't do justice to the body builders. If I had to take one lens, it would be the 24-70.
Scott

Good points, Scott.
DieselGirl, how does the focal length of the lenses you now own work for you? I don't mean in terms of sharpness, but in how much area each focal length covers. Keep in mind that if you shoot a given subject at 50 mm, switching to a 24 mm lens will give you about twice the width as far as field of view.

That might give you a little food for thought.

BTW, I really like the 24-70 myself and keep it on the camera more than any other lens.

[DieselGirl]

I like the flexibity to get tight close ups from a reasonable distance. The 16-35 will get you group shots from a close distance but it won't do justice to the body builders. If I had to take one lens, it would be the 24-70.
Scott

Good points, Scott.
DieselGirl, how does the focal length of the lenses you now own work for you? I don't mean in terms of sharpness, but in how much area each focal length covers. Keep in mind that if you shoot a given subject at 50 mm, switching to a 24 mm lens will give you about twice the width as far as field of view.

That might give you a little food for thought.

BTW, I really like the 24-70 myself and keep it on the camera more than any other lens.

I usually shoot mostly stage shots therefore I use the 70-200mm for that and the shots are incredible.
I have yet to shoot what I am going to be doing therefore my confusion as to what works and won't. I hope by then to have a second camera so perhaps I can carry two with two lenses and have more options. I don't have a lot of time to set up and am afraid any time loss during this event means shots losts. I will check out the 24-70. I didn't even think about it until now.

Thanks everyone. Please continue to confuse, I mean advise me.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[f8]

used sigma 17 - 35 on a 10d some time ago and close up shots of people were distorted fat/long heads etc due to nature of lens (wide angle distortion)

part ex'd for the 24-70L (and some room on my credit card) and have NEVER regretted, have shot people close in tight situations and lens has not exaggerated peoples faces/bodies this is my most used lens, like i said earlier the 70mm (112mm 10D) will give some oppertunities from a distance

the amount of detail this lens is able to convey to the sensor is amazing and while i might wait for a barrage of no's is equal to some L primes

[roanjohn]

I wouldn't recommend the 17-40 for people shots........it distorts the image at the wide end.

............probably go with the 24-70 f2.8 L..............and a 550 EX (if you don't have one already.)

Ro1

[Mike H]

As I recall, you are using the Digital Rebel(?). If that's the case, I would go for the 16-35, especially since you have the longer focal lengths covered.

What you have to think about is how you plan to cover the backstage scene. Take the pictures in your head right now; that will help you decide.

On a camera with a 1.6 crop factor, the 24-70/2.8L is equivalent to a 38mm lens on a 35mm camera. That's not very wide, especially for doing indoor work in a possibly cramped space. If you look at the work of many photojournalists, they often use wide lenses and get close to the subjects. Why? Because this puts the subject into context. Try this: shoot someone with your widest lens, then shoot them twice as far away with a lens twice as long. Leave some space around them, i.e., don't fill the frame completely. The difference you will notice is that there is much more of the background in the shot done with the wider angle lens.

This technique puts the subject into context. In your case, the longer lens will give a nice, tight shot of a competitor. The shorter lens can (if you move in) give a shot of the same person at the same scale with a competitor looking them over in the background. Try to cover the scene with wide lenses and the details with longer ones.

Don't worry too much about distortion with the 16-35 if you are using it on a Digital Rebel; the wide end of the 16-35 isn't that wide on a Rebel. With a 35mm camera or the Mark II, the 16-35 is so wide that distortion is a real potential if you shoot at the wide end and get really close to someone to fill the frame. I rarely, if ever, had a distortion problem using the 16-35 on my 10D. With the Mark II, the story is different. Of course, distortion can be used to your advantage sometimes. :D

The differences you're seeing in the recommendations are to a large degree a reflection of styles. Scott Berger does nice work with long lenses. I'm usually much more in the middle of the action shooting with shorter lenses.

In any event, it sounds like you already own a good driver (70-200); you might want to think about getting a putter (16-35) before you head off to the course.

I hope this helps.

Mike H

[DieselGirl]

As I recall, you are using the Digital Rebel(?). If that's the case, I would go for the 16-35, especially since you have the longer focal lengths covered.

What you have to think about is how you plan to cover the backstage scene. Take the pictures in your head right now; that will help you decide.

On a camera with a 1.6 crop factor, the 24-70/2.8L is equivalent to a 38mm lens on a 35mm camera. That's not very wide, especially for doing indoor work in a possibly cramped space. If you look at the work of many photojournalists, they often use wide lenses and get close to the subjects. Why? Because this puts the subject into context. Try this: shoot someone with your widest lens, then shoot them twice as far away with a lens twice as long. Leave some space around them, i.e., don't fill the frame completely. The difference you will notice is that there is much more of the background in the shot done with the wider angle lens.

This technique puts the subject into context. In your case, the longer lens will give a nice, tight shot of a competitor. The shorter lens can (if you move in) give a shot of the same person at the same scale with a competitor looking them over in the background. Try to cover the scene with wide lenses and the details with longer ones.

Don't worry too much about distortion with the 16-35 if you are using it on a Digital Rebel; the wide end of the 16-35 isn't that wide on a Rebel. With a 35mm camera or the Mark II, the 16-35 is so wide that distortion is a real potential if you shoot at the wide end and get really close to someone to fill the frame. I rarely, if ever, had a distortion problem using the 16-35 on my 10D. With the Mark II, the story is different. Of course, distortion can be used to your advantage sometimes. :D

The differences you're seeing in the recommendations are to a large degree a reflection of styles. Scott Berger does nice work with long lenses. I'm usually much more in the middle of the action shooting with shorter lenses.

In any event, it sounds like you already own a good driver (70-200); you might want to think about getting a putter (16-35) before you head off to the course.

I hope this helps.

Mike H

Thank you Mike

[Mike H]

There are two issues with distortion from wide angle lenses, the tendency of some lenses to have either barrel distortion (line bow out) or pincushion distortion (lines bow in). The other is perspective.

Lenses all have some distortion, though with some it's so low that it's barely detectable. Others aren't so good. It's more so for some lenses closer to the edges of the frames. Wide angle lenses typically show more distortion than others.

What I think some people might be seeing with the 16-35 and 17-40 could have more to do with the second issue, perspective. Remember that perspective is dictated by the relative distances of objects in the frame, not by the lens focal length. Think of it this way: if two people are in the frame, and one is 4 feet away from the camera and the other is 8 feet away, the second is twice as far away and will look smaller in the picture, even if they are exactly the same size. If you move them so that they are 104 and 108 feet away, the second person is 1.038 times as far away. I assure you that they will look the same size in the shot if they are the same size in person!

I notice that I'm getting more "distortion" with my 16-35 using it on my Mark II than I did with my 10D. This is because the wide end of the lens is wider on the Mark II (it has a smaller crop factor), so I'm getting closer to fill the frame with the lens zoomed out sometimes. If a person is sitting in front of the camera in a chair, their knees might look too big because they are 2 feet from the camera and their head is twice as far away. If I move back to shoot with a telephoto the distances might be 12 feet and 14 feet, not enough to cause this effect. The fix isn't to dump the lens, it's to move back and zoom in! In other words, pay more attention to what I'm doing.

(Of course, I'm thinking that a new 24-70/2.8L might move me back enough since it's not so wide. Do you detect any L rationalizing here?) :D

I used the 16-35 to cover a number of events with the 10D, and didn't have problems with distorted heads in my people pictures.

Mike H

[karusel]

I didn't see anyone mentioning a flash... I would presume that a bodybuilding show is not quite well lit for top shots, and as I recall of the fashion shows, there is always plenty of flashing going on. What I'm trying to say is, you don't really need a fast lens, there's going to be a crowd, changing conditions... so forget primes. 16-35 would be a good one, an extra light stop (it could well be useful on some occasions), extra millimeter, compared to the 17-40. Still I think what you want is 24-70. So get that and stop thinking about it. If then you'll feel you need something wider for such and other occasions get the 16-35, if money really is not an issue. Then you'll have crem de la crem of lens, easy to sell, good price too, so no waste at all.

My 0,02 €.

[DieselGirl]

Mike H

I like the way you think. I GET IT!

:D

[danphoto1]

the 16-35 will tend to distort the outer edges or make them look larger than real at 16mm It is an extreemly sharp fast lens, I would perfer the 24 to 70 Canon as it is the closest that you will ever come to prime with Zoom. ssometimes you can rent Sigma Lenses and other dependuing upon where you are located. the 50mm1.4 or 1.8 is also a anexcellent choice.My first choice is 24-70 2.8 Canon :wink:

[Csst]

Diesel just so ou can get a general idea i have the 16-35L and i love this lens i use it about 80% of the time here one of the picture i took with it at Disney when i was on vacation.

http://home.comcast.net/~christarr/picture.jpg

[Mike H]

Mike H

I like the way you think. I GET IT!

:D

Thanks, DieselGirl. What happened to your avatar? :shock: Many of us were in love with it. :D

Mike H

[DieselGirl]

the 16-35 will tend to distort the outer edges or make them look larger than real at 16mm

With the guys I'm going to be shooting, I don't think this will be a bad thing to them.

:P

[DieselGirl]

Mike H

I like the way you think. I GET IT!

:D

Thanks, DieselGirl. What happened to your avatar? :shock: Many of us were in love with it. :D

Mike H

Yes, so I found out. :lol:

I guess I don't want to clean out my mailbox this week with anymore of those types of emails, let's just say that much.

:D

[Aylwin]

I read this before I bought my 17-40L: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

[Mike H]

Mike H

I like the way you think. I GET IT!

:D

Thanks, DieselGirl. What happened to your avatar? :shock: Many of us were in love with it. :D

Mike H

Yes, so I found out. :lol:

I guess I don't want to clean out my mailbox this week with anymore of those types of emails, let's just say that much.

:D

Ouch! Getting back to your lens decision, did you read this article? If not, you should.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

Mike H

[digitalmono]

The 17-40 will give you all the sharpness you'll need.
Have a nice shooting!

[DieselGirl]

Mike H

I like the way you think. I GET IT!

:D

Thanks, DieselGirl. What happened to your avatar? :shock: Many of us were in love with it. :D

Mike H

Yes, so I found out. :lol:

I guess I don't want to clean out my mailbox this week with anymore of those types of emails, let's just say that much.

:D

Ouch! Getting back to your lens decision, did you read this article? If not, you should.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

Mike H

*shakes head back and forth quickly*

What? Did you say something? Oh, I was busy reading this article, I didn't hear you.

:lol:

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate your help and comments. It's been very helpful.

[DieselGirl]

I read this before I bought my 17-40L: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Thank you very much. I am going to read it today!

[DieselGirl]

Tthanks everyone for your advice. I got the 17-40 so I'll let you all know what I decide to use to shoot on the big day. I may still juggle the idea of using a fixed focal length....still not sure.