16-35mm f/2.8 L v 17-40mm f/4 L

[Skip Souza]

Twice the light for twice the money. Is it worth it ???
Used for weddings, family gatherings and who knows what else?
Help, which do I get?

[Citizensmith]

Twice the money and twice the size. The 16-35 really is noticable bigger.

Thats about it, these two are pretty much matched optically. If you think that 1 extra stop will save you some day and the extra cost is no object then go for the 16-35. If not, you loose nothing else going for the 17-40.

[Skip Souza]

Thank you Citizensmith for the input.
The lens will be a gift for my wife. While I know that she is worth it, I am not sure if the 16-35 is worth it. It may be prudent to save some money for her next lens.
I have read all the reviews and tech reports I can find, now I need help from my friends here.
Thanks again.

[cactusclay]

For ****** sake don't shoot any newsprint with it.

[cactusclay]

You'll never hear the end of it.

[cactusclay]

All kidding aside, if I had the money, I would go for the 2.8. They are both nice lenses, but the ability to throw the background out of focus, works much better at 2.8 then it does at 4.0

[Skip Souza]

Thanks Clay, I hadn't considered that aspect.

[thomasrhee]

Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape has a nice comparison review of these 2 lenses.

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

If you don't need the extra speed of the 16-35, go for the 17-40.

[Andy_T]

Twice the money and twice the size. The 16-35 really is noticable bigger.


No, they are about the same size, but the 16-35 is 100 grams heavier.

You should also consider that you can not get the background out of focus with a 16 mm lens (neither at f/2.8 nor at f/4.0) unless you are very close to the subject or the subject is very far from the background. Both conditions normally do not apply for indoor group portraits. (You might try that out with your wifes Tamron 28-75/2.8, how much bokeh you can get at 28/2.8 )

You might look at the Sigma 20/1.8 if that is an important consideration for you.

Best regards,
Andy

[Jesper]

Twice the money and twice the size. The 16-35 really is noticable bigger.I wouldn't call this significantly bigger:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images9/16-17-comp.jpg

[mdr]

You would if it was something else ;) .

[cjtinkle]

Well from a wife's perspective, MY hubby got me the 16-35 for my birthday :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[roanjohn]

I personally would save the cash and get the 17-40 with the 550 EX........and the 16-35 is not so hot wide open anyways (from what I've heard)........while the 17-40 is sharp in all aperture range (even f4).

Ro1

[cactusclay]

I use my 17-40 at 35 and 40 for portraits and weddings and I have to say that 2.8 would make a significant difference in bokeh on a 1.6 crop camera, if it was sharp at 2.8.

[psk4363]

I had the 17-40L until recently when I sold it and upgraded to the 16-35L. I've been very, very happy with both lenses. Both are pin sharp across the whole image (as evidenced when used on my 1nHS) so quality wise there is no appreciable difference between the two either in build or image terms.

I suppose it comes down to whether the extra stop difference is worth it in either usage or money terms. Just my two pence/cents worth.

Barry

[Mike H]

Forget about throwing things out of focus with either of these lenses, they're too wide for you to do that to any significant degree. Also, the bokeh of a lens is related to the lens focal length, so it's unlikely to be different with either lens. You can learn a lot about these lenses if you check out the Luminous Landscape comparison of them. I use the 16-35 and find that it's very sharp. I'm very happy with it.

Regarding bokeh and lens focal length, you should read

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

Castleman does a good job of comparing lenses and discussing results. In fact, his site and an article regarding depth-of-field on the Luminous Landscape site what caused me to re-think and re-learn what I thought I knew about depth-of-field and bokeh.

It's also worth noting that lens bokeh is related to the type of aperture blades that are used; according to Canon, the circular ones generally create better bokeh.

The choice between these lenses basically boils down to whether you're willing to pay the much higher cost for the extra stop. If you shoot in low light a lot, it may make some sense to splurge. If you mainly shoot in bright light, it might be better to save that money for a rainy day (or another L lens). :-)

I hope this helps.

Mike H

[cactusclay]

Here is a sample, if it works, at f4. I would think 2.8 would be even better.

[cactusclay]

Here is one at f16, still at 40 mm. Should have done them both at the same time, but I wasn't thinking.

[Mike H]

Just to clarify my point regarding depth-of-field, it's unlikely that one will have many opportunities to use the selective focus tool with a lens that wide. Of course, if you're in the habit of photographing small objects from up close with a distant background, the situation would be different. Photographing things up close is something more typically done with macro lenses. A shallow depth-of-field can be had with nearly any lens if you're willing to get close enough. However, most people don't use ultra-wide angle lenses that way for everyday shooting (unless trying to prove things on Internet boards is an every day thing for them). :-)

So, for those that plan to photograph small objects with an ultra-wide zoom in situations where the background is a considerable distance away, you may care about the small gain in depth-of-field limiting capabilities that you could gain by using the f/2.8 zoom instead of the f/4 zoom. For those that are planning to use a zoom in other ways, don't worry about the extra stop unless you shoot often in low light.

Mike H

[cactusclay]

Well, Mike I wouldn't consider three feet away exactly up close. I shoot head and sholder shots of people with that lens and I'm pretty close to three or four feet away when I do. It works good for full body shots too. I don't have any need to make a point, but I've seen portraits with the 16-35, that had excellent out of focus background and I do it with my 17-40 quite often. If you like, my girlfriend is on her way over right now. I can take a picture of her at F4 and F16 so you can get an idea of what your lens will do even better than mine. I'll shoot it at 35 mm.

[Mike H]

Cactus,

That was an interesting experiment (your lens photographs). Since your point was that a one step change in f stops would change the depth-of-field significantly enough to change one's purchase decision (it's a big price diffential between the lenses in question), why don't you show the shot taken at f/4 and f/5.6. Thanks.

Mike H

[Mike H]

Well, Mike I wouldn't consider three feet away exactly up close. I shoot head and sholder shots of people with that lens and I'm pretty close to three or four feet away when I do. It works good for full body shots too. I don't have any need to make a point, but I've seen portraits with the 16-35, that had excellent out of focus background and I do it with my 17-40 quite often. If you like, my girlfriend is on her way over right now. I can take a picture of her at F4 and F16 so you can get an idea of what your lens will do even better than mine. I'll shoot it at 35 mm.

Again, you should try shooting it at two settings one step apart. You're point was that the extra money on the 16-35 is well spent because of the better out of focus appearance you get by making that one step change. The person didn't have a choice between an f/4 and f/16 lens; it's an f/2.8 vs. an f/4. Thanks.

Mike H

[cactusclay]

I know it's not perfect, her eyes are closed in one and open in the other and I moved the camera a bit, but I think it was actually the wind blew me over. It's howling pretty good outside right now.

[cactusclay]

Skip was saying that his wife was worth it, so I figured money didn't matter. If it didn't matter to me I would own the 16-35 2.8 right now and if I had it along with the 17-40/4 I would show the difference in background blur to old Skip right now, but I don't have both, so I was showing what F4 looked like compared to F16, so Skip and you could get an idea what is possible at F4. Why don't you post some with your lens to give us all an idea.

[cactusclay]

As far as background going out of focus, I think, I might be wrong, but I think there is a bigger difference going from F4 to 2.8, then there would be going from 5.6 to 4. Nuff said.

[Skip Souza]

Skip was saying that his wife was worth it, so I figured money didn't matter. If it didn't matter to me I would own the 16-35 2.8 right now and if I had it along with the 17-40/4 I would show the difference in background blur to old Skip right now, but I don't have both, so I was showing what F4 looked like compared to F16, so Skip and you could get an idea what is possible at F4. Why don't you post some with your lens to give us all an idea.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Money always matters. We are comfortable but not rich. If I were spending Bill Gates money my signature would look a lot different ;) . I think the deciding factor will be the ability to shoot wide in churches, around dining tables and such without flash and the like so maybe twice the light is worth twice the money.

Now Clay, about this "old" Skip stuff :p :p :p show a little respect for the elderly. Growing old is mandatory and not for sissies. Growing up is optional.

Actually all you guys have been a great help. Be careful out there.

[Mike H]

... Why don't you post some with your lens to give us all an idea. ...

I will try to do that this weekend. I'd do it sooner, but I have one of those job thingies, and it keeps getting in the way of my recreational opportunities. :-(

On the bright side, my job does help with paying for L lenses ... :-)

Mike

[Mike H]

As far as background going out of focus, I think, I might be wrong, but I think there is a bigger difference going from F4 to 2.8, then there would be going from 5.6 to 4. Nuff said.

Agreed. I think I have a model lined up for the weekend, and if I do, we can find out more. It should only take one or two snaps.

Mike

[Andy_T]

Here is a sample, if it works, at f4. I would think 2.8 would be even better.

I don't have a problem either to get nice DOF
- when using 40 mm focal length,
- a distance of 2 meters to the subject and
- a distance of 20 meters to the background.

But skip mentioned indoor group portraits.

That means
- shorter focal length (17 mm)
- longer distance to the subject (5 m)
- less distance from subject to background (5 m)

These conditions do not favour tight DOF, either on f/2.8 or on f/4.0.

Again - Skip - take that 28-75/2.8 Tamron lens and try to get a really nice bokeh at 28 mm.
It's not easy, especially not for indoor portraits (I know because I tried it :wink: ).
Still, it will be even much more difficult when using a shorter focal length (your reason for getting the lens).

Best regards,
Andy

[Jon]

The lens will be a gift for my wife. While I know that she is worth it, I am not sure if the 16-35 is worth it. It may be prudent to save some money for her next lens.

. . . and how are you keeping her off the board so this can be a surprise? I haven't noticed her posting recently, so whatever it is seems to be working. I know that I'd go for the extra stop even if it was 16-35 f/4 and 17-40 f/2.8 instead of the other way around.

[Andy_T]

Look at it from another angle.

That money can buy you either
- the 16-35/2.8 L (which is one great lens) or
- the 17-40/4.0 L and the 70-200/4.0 L (which is two great lenses)

I know I am not making it easier for you :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[Skip Souza]

Thomas, Andy, Jesper, Marc, CJ, Ro1, Barry, Mike H, and Jon, thank you all for the help. I went with the 16-35mm. It will be her first L, so I made it the good one. In the end I took my own advice; "get the best that you can afford and you will not be disappointed". And yes, she is definitely worth it.
I will be looking foward to the comparison pix.
Thanks again all.

Cactusclay------------- "old"? :p :lol: :rolleyes: :lol: :p

[cjtinkle]

Excellent choice, much better than flowers and chocolate! She's gonna love it, I know I do!

[cactusclay]

Ok, Skip, I didn't mean old as in old, in fact I had no idea you were getting along in years :rolleyes: . I really just meant it like ol skip, but I've been getting some grief here lately for not being a very good spellar, so I new how to spell old, I just wasn't sure about OL, or ol, or ole. :lol: :lol:

[Skip Souza]

Ok, Skip, I didn't mean old as in old, in fact I had no idea you were getting along in years :rolleyes: . I really just meant it like ol skip, but I've been getting some grief here lately for not being a very good spellar, so I new how to spell old, I just wasn't sure about OL, or ol, or ole. :lol: :lol:
LMAO :lol: :p :lol: :p :lol:

[Brant]

[QUOTE=Skip Souza]Thomas, Andy, Jesper, Marc, CJ, Ro1, Barry, Mike H, and Jon, thank you all for the help. I went with the 16-35mm. It will be her first L, so I made it the good one. In the end I took my own advice; "get the best that you can afford and you will not be disappointed". And yes, she is definitely worth it.
I will be looking foward to the comparison pix.
Thanks again all.

Concur with your decision. I'm using the 16-35 with a 20D and am extremely pleased. It would even be better with a full size sensor, but this lens is the one that lives on the D20 the most, and having the extra stop for lower light is worth it... Enjoy

Brant
btw: nice bike, rode the Triumph Daytona 1200 for years, but, but Can't afford it and my lenses. -ha ha. (i'm serious)

[sixshot]

Ohh....I have also been battling with the decicion to spend the extra cash for the 16-35 and after deciding on the 17-40 I am now having second thoughts - again......

[Skip Souza]

Nice pix Brant, and thank you. If I just had to give up the VFR or the Canon, well, er, ah, I guess I could go back to work.....nah. I could knock over a bank though ;-) ;-) ;-)