Convince me not to get the 16-35 f/2.8 L

[Savagelogic]

I apologize for the long post.

For a while now I've pretty much made up my mind to get teh 16-35 purely because of the f/2.8 to be used on a 10D. My main reason for getting this is for photojournalism purposes, I'll be working for my college's school newspaper and I'll be using this equipment for my newspaper internships and freelance work once I graduate. To be honest though, my photo experience for a newspaper is very very small so I don't know for sure how much I'll be using the 2.8, this is just what I've heard I will need.

As a side note, I also want the wide angle to do landscape/nature work but obviously don't need f/2.8 for that type of work.

I would love to save the money and get the 17-40 f/4 L, but I'm afraid I'll wind up wanting the 2.8 for indoor/low light work. I'd also look at 3rd party lenses like Sigma or Tamron, but the build quality and sharpness on the Canon's really appeal to me. Although, newspaper print will never show it :( . Not too far down the road, I do plan on getting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L to go along with my wide angle and my 50 f/1.8.

I guess in the end, I feel the 1 extra stop seems like a rip off compared to the 17-40. I know I can gain a stop on the wide end and save money on a Sigma or Tamron that have a max aperature range of f/2.8-4, but I always seem to read mixed reviews of these.

For my purposes, why would I not want the 16-35? or why could I live with something else to save money?

[Pekka]

As you have 10D which is 1.6X camera, you'll need all the wide end you can get. This speaks for 16-35. But as you are in relatively "low overall budget" I'd suggest you get 17-40 and invest rest in a good flash - if you do not specifially need to shoot in available light (low light) situations then in most PJ jobs you may use flash. You could get Sigma 20 or Canon 35/2 for those low light works.

With Mark II 17-40 is excellent - wide and sharp. Clean high ISO's takes care of that extra stop - I've had about 10 shots of 500 when it would have been "nice" to have extra stop but I've managed. And in many of those situations DoF was a problem even with f/4. I'm personally looking for 24/1.4L for the artsy wide angle work, not 16-35.

[Longwatcher]

Try this one,
When ever I have needed to use the bigger aperture of the 16-35 in a low light situation, I typically find I can use a flash. When I can't use a flash, the only lens I have that has any chance of working is my 50/1.4. Thus in this case the 2.8 aperture does not help enough. What I do use though is the wide angle, which is why I prefer the 16-35 I have over the 17-40 I would have gotten had it been available. That 1mm more on the wide side may not actually make any real difference, but I like to think so.

Translation, the 17-40 is the lens I would have bought had it been available at the time I needed a wide-angle lens, however I am content with the extra money spent on the 16-35.

Save the money and get the 550EX flash to go with your 17-40.

Just my opinion,

[roanjohn]

Save the money and get the 550EX flash to go with your 17-40.

Just my opinion,

BINGO!!!

Ro1

[psk4363]

Save the money and get the 550EX flash to go with your 17-40.

Just my opinion,

BINGO!!!

Ro1

That's exactly what I did! 8)

Barry

[Tom W]

As Pekka said, high ISO can be helpful to gain that extra stop. Another consideration is that you might prefer stopping down a bit to gain deeper depth-of-field, particularly if the objects of importance are at varying distances from you.

Here's one at ISO 1600, f/8, 1/8 second with the 17-40:

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3wp4m&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

I have a Sigma 20 mm f/1.8 for low light situations, but I've not found that I haven't needed it much. Shallow DOF and wide don't always work well together.

[psk4363]

Thanks Tom for this one: -

Here's one at ISO 1600, f/8, 1/8 second with the 17-40:

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3wp4m&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Drool! So much JD and so little time to get through it all! Drool!

Barry :p

[Andy_T]

Tom, that's a delicious photograph!

Best regards,
Andy

[theoldmoose]

I wouldn't go for the 'extra stop' for faster shutter speed on a 10D body. The camera takes such noise-free images at ISO 200, or even at ISO 400, you can gain that 1 or 2 stop just by upping the ISO.

That said, what I'd get a bigger lens for is so I *can* stop it down a little and get a sharp image, at say f4, compared to running an f4 lens all the way open.

In any event, for those occasions, I pull out one of three primes -- 28, 50, or 85, all f1.8, and proceed to stop down appropriately. You can essentially get all three of these primes for less than the difference you'll pay for f2.8 vs f4 zooms, and end up with a much lighter bag, and smaller zooms to carry around.

You'll also save a ton on filters, if you standardize (mostly) on zooms and primes that all use 58mm filters.

[Savagelogic]

Thanks everyone for the replies, I really appreciate it. :D

I guess the situations that I would like the 2.8 is definately low light where flash is prohibited and times where I prefer the look of the picture shot with 2.8 instead of 4 for the bokeh. Does anyone know of any sites with examples of these lenses used at f/2.8 and f/4 for comparison?

The idea of putting the savings towards the 550ex and primes does sound appealing to me since I'll have a more diverse lens choice available and I know I'll need the 550ex for PJ work regardless of the lenses I have.

Anymore tips or pointers to places I can get more information would be appreciated. I love these boards, thanks everyone. :)

[DaveG]

I apologize for the long post.

For a while now I've pretty much made up my mind to get teh 16-35 purely because of the f/2.8 to be used on a 10D. My main reason for getting this is for photojournalism purposes, I'll be working for my college's school newspaper and I'll be using this equipment for my newspaper internships and freelance work once I graduate. To be honest though, my photo experience for a newspaper is very very small so I don't know for sure how much I'll be using the 2.8, this is just what I've heard I will need.

As a side note, I also want the wide angle to do landscape/nature work but obviously don't need f/2.8 for that type of work.

I would love to save the money and get the 17-40 f/4 L, but I'm afraid I'll wind up wanting the 2.8 for indoor/low light work. I'd also look at 3rd party lenses like Sigma or Tamron, but the build quality and sharpness on the Canon's really appeal to me. Although, newspaper print will never show it :( . Not too far down the road, I do plan on getting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L to go along with my wide angle and my 50 f/1.8.

I guess in the end, I feel the 1 extra stop seems like a rip off compared to the 17-40. I know I can gain a stop on the wide end and save money on a Sigma or Tamron that have a max aperature range of f/2.8-4, but I always seem to read mixed reviews of these.

For my purposes, why would I not want the 16-35? or why could I live with something else to save money?

You are buying something that's going to be a working tool for you for the next 20 years. That stop extra may only come in handy once or twice a year, but during those moments it may well be vital. The fast brand X lenses are unlikely to be as durable as the Canon so take that into account too. I had this same choice a year ago and chose the 16-35 and haven't regretted it one bit.

If you were a weekend warrior then the 17-40 would be just fine, but for a soon to be working pro, buy the best you can because it's going to around for a very long time.

[Radtech1]

2 questions:

1) Is sharpness the overriding reason for wanting that lens?

2) Is the 10D a temporary body?

If your answers are 1. YES and 2. NO - well, then you will be disappointed.

The sharpness of Canons L lenses is greater than the ability of the imagereceptor in the 10D to resolve.

I ran into this rude awakening when I bought the 70-200 f2.8L IS. The sharpness of my images was no sharper than with my trusty old 28-135 IS.

As was pointed out to me when I was posting the comparison results "In a few years when the release the 10H (or whatever) with a full sized 36Mpx imagereceptor, the L will give you much better sharpness than the 28-135."

True, but I have a 10D, not a 10H, and now is when I am shooting, and NOW, it does not make sense to blow $1700 on a lens, if my camera cannot see the image it throws. Kind of like a deaf person blowing $15,000 on a Bang and Olufsen stereo, it's a sweet thing, but what's the point.

Rad

PS. I got the Canon 70-300 DO and I love it. Smaller, lighter, 100 mm longer reach, and $500 cheaper to boot.

[Aylwin]

This review convinced me that the 17-40L was the best way to go: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Basically, it shows that the 17-40L is better than the 16-35L at the wide end (17mm). On the other hand, it's reversed on the long end. In my case, I wanted a wide lens mostly for 20mm or less, not for 30mm or more.

I don't think the extra stop is a big deal either. In low light indoor situations, I find that f/2.8 isn't of much use. I'd usually need f/1.4-2.0. Besides, if you can use a flash then you don't need the extra stop.

[Savagelogic]

2 questions:

1) Is sharpness the overriding reason for wanting that lens?

2) Is the 10D a temporary body?

If your answers are 1. YES and 2. NO - well, then you will be disappointed.

1. No, sharpenss isn't the overriding reason for this lens. My main reason is the wide angle, the fact that its a zoom, the fact that its f/2.8, and the build quality of the L lenses. I do realize that I get all this except the f/2.8 in the 17-40, which is why I'm questioning this purchase.
2. Yes, I imagine that I'll upgrade to the 1D mk2 or equivalent in 2,3, or 4 years from now depending on my needs and budget at that time. I'll probably still use the 10D as a backup then.

I would like this lens purchase to last me 10 years or so, and be used during my work for my future pro PJ work doing internships and freelance. That right there seems to say to get the f/2.8 which I will have enough money to get, but I won't have money for much else for a good while.

[bmccall]

I ran into this rude awakening when I bought the 70-200 f2.8L IS. The sharpness of my images was no sharper than with my trusty old 28-135 IS.


Not true with my gear - the 100Macro, 70-200 F4, and 24-70 all produced sharper photos (especially in fine detail such as eyes and eyebrows) than either the Canon 28-135IS or Tamron 24-135 lenses that I tried on my 10D. I tried two different brand new 28-135IS. So either they and the Tamron were all defective, or the 10D can resolve the difference in quality.

[Savagelogic]

Well I went into my local Calumet because they were having Canon day (a Canon rep was there showing off the 20D and lenses who paid my sales tax). I was able to test out the 16-35 and the 17-40. After taking a few shots with both lenses to see how much wider the 16 is vs 17 and how much better the bokeh is (2.8 vs 4) while foucssing on a close object I found that the difference between these 2 lenses was negligable. I just coudln't justify spending twice as much for the differences. The only times when I would really need the extra stop with the 16-35 is newspaper work and bumping up the ISO shouldn't be a problem for that. A few years from now when I'm making the money (vs part time work while in college) I can always upgrade if need be.

So for anyone debating on lens choices, I highly recommend to go to a store that has both on hand and demo them.

Thanks everyone for their help.

[drisley]

The difference of blur between f2.8 and f4.0, even at 200mm isn't that big, so at such a small focal length as the 2 lenses you mentioned, it would be very small indeed.

few years from now when I'm making the money (vs part time work while in college) I can always upgrade if need be.

By then we will be using Dslr's with ISO6400 that is noise free! :wink: