How is the 16-35L Indoors?

[cdhender]

I know this topic has been beaten to death regarding this lense vs the 17-40, so I'm not going to ask that.

However, I am going to say this: From what I've read, the only reason to get the 16-35 is for the extra stop which is useful for low light, indoor shooting. But I've also read that f/2.8 still isn't really good enough; and that if I really want to shoot indoors in low light I need a prime (24L or 34L).

Any insight on this lense's performance indoors? Churches, museums,etc? That would be the only reason I would purchase this over the 17-40 so if it perfoms "better than the 17-40 indoors, but still not great" then I'll have that $700 bucks and put it towards a 34L.

[blue_max]

Just some thoughts, but there is indoors and there is indoors.

Some beautiful buildings have next to no light and some are bathed in it. Are you shooting architecture with a tripod? Do you need people in your shots. Do you use flash? Are you taking pictures of exhibits?

If you have somewhere in mind, take a lens with you and meter with the camera for 2.8 and 4 and see what sort of times you get. That will give you an idea (or do it at home). Try increasing the ISO to see if the noise is acceptable whilst giving you the speed you need to shoot.

The canon wide zooms are f4 or 2.8 at best, so getting a 2.8 prime will not help much. The 1.4 primes are very expensive and much less flexible.

If you want to guarantee to be able to get that shot, within reason, you need the primes. If you value flexibility and can work with the constraints of a slower lens, then you are good for zooms. Often it makes a good shot to have the architecture sharp and the people blurred – unless you are doing a wedding or something!

I guess it's establishing which compromises you have to make (and you will have to make some whichever way you go).

Hope that helps you decide.

Graham

[Longwatcher]

You have a choice to make,
Do you want just a little bit more quality and light? Then get 14mm, 24mm and 35mm prime lenses

Do you want very close to the best and a whole lot more flexability at half the price, then get 16-35/2.8L.

I love my 16-35L, Why I even used it last night to take pictures...

I cheated though as I had studio lights going.

Seriously the 16-35L is an outstanding lens and short of buying all three of the above primes, you are not going to find a better lens for your use. In addition to the extra stop, You also get about another 4 degrees of view (on a FF, 2 on a 1.6x) with the 16-35 and at f4 the 16-35 should be a bit better then the 17-40/4. It is way better at f2.8 8)

Just my opinion,

[cdhender]

I'm not going to be shooting theater or anything that dark. I'll be shooting well lit buildings, but interiors. So museums, churches, etc. But I expect there to be interior lighting that you'd see at a standard building. Convenience will be a big factor for me. I would prefer to carry one lense obviously instead of 3.

I guess what I want to know is, how does this lense perform wide open, at f/2.8? If it's not great, then I might as well skip it and buy a 17-40 and some low light primes (50 1.4, 35 2.0) for the same cost.

[CyberDyneSystems]

When shooting indoors We have our choce of fast zooms.. at hich point f/2.8 is the fastest we can get... or fast primes..

I use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm indoors in low light no flash quite often. I usually have toi shoot at ISO 1600 or 800 if I'm lucky.

Going to faster primes brings the ISO down and the shutters up.
I think the 16-35mm probably performs beter wide opan than any other fast zoom in this range..

But I went the other route.. I have the 17-40mm f/4 and use primes as often as I can.

FYI I have no faster wide angle option though.. I don't shoot indoor wide much.. my widest prime is the 28mm f/1.8.. and even that is rarely on the camera.

[blue_max]

Summing up time I think. See if you agree.

For business or passion – buy the fastest lens available.
For anything less – spend as much as you can and get the fastest you can.
For fun –*borrow one.

Graham
*Anyone lend me a few wide angle primes for a lifetime!

[cdhender]

Thank you guys for all this input. It's seriously appreciated. I'm leaning towards the 16-35 simply because it's the kind of purchase I can make and feel completely content with. I feel like if I purchase the 17-40, I might always wonder "what if". And if I bought the 17-40L and needed something faster, I'd have to additionally buy either the 24L or 34L and so I might as well have bought the 16-35L in the first place. Does that make sense? Anyway...

That being said, I'm not buying this lense until fall (getting the 24-70 soon instead). So by then, who knows :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think it's the right choice.. I faied to mention,. I never use the 17-40mm indoors without flash..

If I had he f/2.8 instead.. then I would :)

[blue_max]

This is a great result. It helped you to decide for yourself.

A forums job is done.

Graham