17-40 vs. 16-35 L's

[AjP]

I know this topic probably had been discussed many time, just need advice, to make my finaly decision. I'm shooting weddings and trying to get few 2.8 L lenses, and I'm thinking 16-35 2.8 will be better then 17-40 because or 2.8 istead 4.0, what you guys think about 16-35, looks like this is prety good, sharp lense?????
Thx

[tommykjensen]

Have a look at these 2 threads

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78277
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77293

I just sold my 17-40 f/4. And I am trying to sell my 28-135 IS in order to raise some of the money to get the 16-35 mm f/2.8L.

The above 2 threads played a major part in my decision to do so.

[xuxu1]

it´s always a question what your are shooting. In your case the decision going for the 16-35L is perfect (shooting weddings). A lot of photogs never or at least hardly ever shoot in low light conditions. I´m one of them. 99,95% outdoor shootings. Therefore i did´nt bother to pay double price for the 16-35L and bought the 17-40L. For me a great lens and saved quite a amount of money.

Nothing new... lot´s of people share my opinion. Just read other threads concerning this matter.

ED

[cdhender]

it´s always a question what your are shooting. In your case the decision going for the 16-35L is perfect (shooting weddings). A lot of photogs never or at least hardly ever shoot in low light conditions. I´m one of them. 99,95% outdoor shootings. Therefore i did´nt bother to pay double price for the 16-35L and bought the 17-40L. For me a great lens and saved quite a amount of money.

Nothing new... lot´s of people share my opinion. Just read other threads concerning this matter.

ED

Ditto. Didn't need the f/2.8 ability and didn't see any real difference in image quality between the two lenses. I really wanted to want the 16-35L, but at the end of the day, I just couldn't justify it.

Instead, that extra cash is going to another lense. Either a 70-200 or a 135L :D

[blue_max]

I know this topic probably had been discussed many time, just need advice, to make my finaly decision. I'm shooting weddings and trying to get few 2.8 L lenses, and I'm thinking 16-35 2.8 will be better then 17-40 because or 2.8 istead 4.0, what you guys think about 16-35, looks like this is prety good, sharp lense?????
Thx

If you want/need f2.8, then it's a good choice. If you can live with an f4 or use flash, then the 17-40 will be just as good. You seem to have decided you want f2.8 and yes it is a good quality lens, so you can flash the cash with confidence.

Graham

[NJames73]

AJ,

My wife and I also shoot weddings......we actually just jumped into the world of Canon Digital.....I asked this same question a few weeks back.....and decided to go with the 16-35. With all those low light Receptions......Sunset/Dusk shots......I just wanted a lens that could handle these situations..... We got the camera and lenses last Thursday...we broke it out and are amazed by the quality of this stuff........I am sure the 17-40 is a great lens...and would probably handle 80 to 90% of what you would need to shoot.....but I figured.....I can't afford not to have the best...so we went with the 16-35.....If you can swing it go for the 16-35.....

[blue_max]

AJ,

but I figured.....I can't afford not to have the best...so we went with the 16-35.....If you can swing it go for the 16-35.....


But you settled for a compromise on the body. A full frame sensor would improve the quality. We all have to save a little cash where we can :lol:

Graham

[AjP]

thanks guys, I will go with 16-35, since for past several weeks, lots of receptions and few wedding was inside and at least 2.8 will help me with fast focusing in low light.

Blue_Max, I love my 20d for weddings and gona get another one for second cam, it work just great and I can live with 1.6x crop instead 1.3x in Mark II and definately not worth speding 8000 for 1x crop on Ds2 for weddings.
20D doing wonderful job!!!!

[blue_max]

Blue_Max, I love my 20d for weddings and gona get another one for second cam, it work just great and I can live with 1.6x crop instead 1.3x in Mark II and definately not worth speding 8000 for 1x crop on Ds2 for weddings.
20D doing wonderful job!!!!

I love my 17-40 and the same applies. If I was doing it commercially I would grab the most expensive of everything - because I could. I don't blame you by the way, I use a second hand 10d and don't feel the need for a 20d yet. Everyone has their limit. I have gone way, way past mine :lol:

I guess the OP wanted reassurance of his decision to buy the 2.8 and who would seriously argue it was not a good choice.

Graham

[I Simonius]

I know this topic probably had been discussed many time, just need advice, to make my finaly decision. I'm shooting weddings and trying to get few 2.8 L lenses, and I'm thinking 16-35 2.8 will be better then 17-40 because or 2.8 istead 4.0, what you guys think about 16-35, looks like this is prety good, sharp lense?????
Thx

17-40 with a flash is still cheaper than the 16-35 :D

[martook]

17-40 with a flash is still cheaper than the 16-35 :D

True, but sometimes, using a flash is not an option (read: not allowed in church), then the f/2.8 is worth it's price...
Even if you get the 16-35, you'll want the flash by the way, so might as well not put that in the equation at all ;)

[I Simonius]

True, but sometimes, using a flash is not an option (read: not allowed in church), then the f/2.8 is worth it's price...
Even if you get the 16-35, you'll want the flash by the way, so might as well not put that in the equation at all ;)

Sure thing!

[Andy_T]

It might also be interesting to know that there is an older (discontinued) 20-35/2.8L lens that reputedly has great image quality (better than old 17-35/2.8 ) and normally sells on eBay in the 400~450$ range.

Granted, it's not *that* wide, but it might be an affordable compromise.

Best regards,
Andy

[bluefox9er]

i think if you are shooting weddings, you really need a fast lens. that said, i have never ever shot a wedding, but i would have got a 16-35 if i had the $$ at the time, i have the 17-40 thta i have used indoor, and because I mount it on a 1dmkIII or a 5d, I can hike the iso up to 1600 and get the shutter seeds i need in low light.

[bohdank]

Resurrecting old threads from the dead ?

[cpforyou]

Since it is brought back from the dead, we need a comparison of 17-40 vs. 16-35 Mark II.