Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 21 Aug 2017 (Monday) 12:43
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

16-35L or 17-40L?

 
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Sep 05, 2017 23:17 |  #16

Mike,

Why don't you test out a brand new Tamron SP 15-30. The latest new fresh batch should have a firmware that is compatible to a 5dmk4 and 80D if you ever get those bodies in the future. BAD thing about this lens is that it is NOT compatible with the USB Tammy hub so you cannot update the firmware at home.


I will say I used on of those boat anchor Tammy zooms and I loved it!!! It's a step above the Canon 16-35 f/2.8mk2 an pretty darn close to a 16-35 f/2.8mk3. I'm mentioning this because the f/2.8 is 1 stop faster than the f/4 zooms your looking at.

I like how that tammy performed with direct sun entering the lens. The 16-35 f/4IS with my 5d3 couldn't autofocus reliably when I shot that way with my camera.

These photos were nothing ground breaking but I really enjoyed how the Tammy rendered both in colour and easily on par with the 16-35 f/4IS in sharpness and micro contrast.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,125 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Sep 06, 2017 00:17 |  #17

Used or new? New there is a $250 premium and I'd say it's definitely worth the extra. If your comparing used well you can pickup the 17-40 for 400 while the 16-35 F4 IS typicall runs around 800. Thats a $400 premium. Overall I'd say yes it is worth the premium due to the IQ alone but you also get the updated body/hood/AF and also gain IS which is very useful. Did I mention the IQ is stellar?

I've used both. 16-35 F4 IS is excellent but so is the 17-40. Depends on budget and wants in the end.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
*** vanished ***
Sep 06, 2017 00:23 as a reply to AlanU's post |  #18

Awesome shots, but color is a bit lacking as with many Tamron lenses.
Pushing PP in second shot rendered a very nice result, but certainly the subject could handle it.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,125 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Sep 06, 2017 00:45 |  #19

CheshireCat wrote in post #18445642 (external link)
Awesome shots, but color is a bit lacking as with many Tamron lenses.
Pushing PP in second shot rendered a very nice result, but certainly the subject could handle it.

Agreed. Tamrons work great for those low contrast portraits. I know it takes a lil touch on the tamron glass for it to get close to the Canon. Without a doubt the Canon's are easily spotted when comparing to the Tamron.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,564 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Sep 06, 2017 01:03 |  #20

CheshireCat wrote in post #18442185 (external link)
This is why I'd rather buy a couple smaller used primes than the 17-40, if the 16-35/4 is too expensive.

It's not that the 16-35/4 is too expensive. My only complaint about the 17-40 is the extreme corners at 17mm. Zoom in just a bit, and the corners are OK. If I know I am going wide, I take the Sigma 12-24.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
*** vanished ***
Sep 06, 2017 01:30 |  #21

Bassat wrote in post #18445654 (external link)
It's not that the 16-35/4 is too expensive. My only complaint about the 17-40 is the extreme corners at 17mm. Zoom in just a bit, and the corners are OK. If I know I am going wide, I take the Sigma 12-24.

I don't know the new Sigma 12-24. I shot one afternoon with the v1, and apart from mediocre resolution I was disappointed by color rendering.
How are the new versions wide open at around 16mm ?


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,564 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Sep 06, 2017 01:38 |  #22

CheshireCat wrote in post #18445661 (external link)
I don't know the new Sigma 12-24. I shot one afternoon with the v1, and apart from mediocre resolution I was disappointed by color rendering.
How are the new versions wide open at around 16mm ?

Sorry, I don't have the new (f/4) version. I am using version II. I am quite happy with it. Then again, I'm happy with my 17-40, too.

I don't get the 'color rendering' comment/question. I use my lenses on digital cameras, and process the results in Lightroom and PSE. I can do just about anything I want with colors. ...or noise, or levels, or exposure, or contrast, or yadda-yadda .... To my mind, there is no perfect capture. Tweak it 'til you like it. 99.732% of folks can't tell the difference. I'm one of 'em.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
*** vanished ***
Sep 06, 2017 01:42 |  #23

Bassat wrote in post #18445665 (external link)
I can do just about anything I want with colors.

Then you are better than me... or less picky ;)


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,564 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Sep 06, 2017 01:52 |  #24

CheshireCat wrote in post #18445667 (external link)
Then you are better than me... or less picky ;)

Let's stick to less picky. I don't like to think of myself as better... uncomfortable.

The way I see it, no photograph - EVER - has been an accurate and precise replication of reality. Glass/film/sensors/des​ign/processors/raw limitations/electronic​s/jpg conversions and the like affect every digital photograph ever recorded. And that is BEFORE it gets to your memory card. There are myriad, nearly infinite, ways to tweak a photo once you get it to your computer. After that, presentation matters.

No, there has never been, and never will be a photograph that is/was an exact replication of reality. As such, what do my little tweaks matter?


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
*** vanished ***
Sep 06, 2017 10:01 as a reply to Bassat's post |  #25

I don't need my photos to look exactly like reality...
I just want them to look better ;)


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,125 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Sep 06, 2017 10:14 |  #26

CheshireCat wrote in post #18445859 (external link)
I don't need my photos to look exactly like reality...
I just want them to look better than yours ;)

fixed that for ya hehe.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
*** vanished ***
Sep 06, 2017 14:23 |  #27

Talley wrote in post #18445867 (external link)
fixed that for ya hehe.

:D ... I meant "better than reality" ;)


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,125 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Sep 06, 2017 14:32 |  #28

Well I wish I could help the OP but I'm in my same UWA zoom situation. Just waiting for my 2.8 III to arrive so I can compare it to the F4 IS. Sold the 24A and plan to sell the F4 IS so combined would cover most of the 2.8 III.

Curious to see if I can see much of a difference or not. If its not much of a difference I'll get rid of the 2.8III and keep the F4 IS.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Sep 06, 2017 14:51 |  #29

Talley wrote in post #18446079 (external link)
Well I wish I could help the OP but I'm in my same UWA zoom situation. Just waiting for my 2.8 III to arrive so I can compare it to the F4 IS. Sold the 24A and plan to sell the F4 IS so combined would cover most of the 2.8 III.

Curious to see if I can see much of a difference or not. If its not much of a difference I'll get rid of the 2.8III and keep the F4 IS.

I'd probably say the 16-35mk3 will be identical in IQ to the f/4IS but 1 stop faster minus the image stabilization.

The Tamron i had went back as the 30mm range back focused and I couldn't handle knowing there was such a variance in focus from wide to long on the zoom. My next UWA is the 16-35 mk3. TBH i'm quite happy with the Mk2 since the image quality really has ramped up since I've used it on the 5dmk4.

I really like the f/4is UWA from canon. It's such a great quality lens for UWA.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,589 views & 8 likes for this thread
16-35L or 17-40L?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00127 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is locketlover13
869 guests, 346 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016