Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16th of August 2004 (Mon)   #1
Savagelogic
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 54
Default Convince me not to get the 16-35 f/2.8 L

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?
Savagelogic is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 16th of August 2004 (Mon)   #2
Pekka
El General Moderator
 
Pekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hellsinki, Finland
Posts: 14,937
Default

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.
__________________
Forum headmaster
NEW FORUM SOFTWARE FOR POTN: WHITE PAPER IS HERE
Photo Gallery

----------------------------
Pekka is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of August 2004 (Mon)   #3
Longwatcher
obsolete as of this post
 
Longwatcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Newport News, VA, USA
Posts: 3,904
Default

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,
__________________
"Save the model, Save the camera, The Photographer can be repaired"
www.longwatcher.com
1DsMkIII as primary camera with f2.8L zooms and the 85L
http://www.longwatcher.com/photoequipment.htm
Longwatcher is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 16th of August 2004 (Mon)   #4
roanjohn
Goldmember
 
roanjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longwatcher
Save the money and get the 550EX flash to go with your 17-40.

Just my opinion,
BINGO!!!

Ro1
__________________


www.pbase.com/roanjohn
roanjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #5
psk4363
Member
 
psk4363's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bolton, UK
Posts: 720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roanjohn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longwatcher
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
__________________
A little G9
psk4363 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #6
Tom W
Canon Fanosapien
 
Tom W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Posts: 12,743
Default

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=y3wp...&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.
__________________
Tom
5D III, 7D, & various lenses
Tom W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #7
psk4363
Member
 
psk4363's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bolton, UK
Posts: 720
Default

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=y3wp...&nostamp=1

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

Barry
__________________
A little G9
psk4363 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #8
Andy_T
Compensating for his small ... sensor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,860
Default

Tom, that's a delicious photograph!

Best regards,
Andy
Andy_T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #9
theoldmoose
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 294
Default

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.
theoldmoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #10
Savagelogic
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 54
Default Thanks

Thanks everyone for the replies, I really appreciate it.

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.
Savagelogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #11
DaveG
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,040
Default Re: Convince me not to get the 16-35 f/2.8 L

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #12
Radtech1
Everlasting Gobstopper
 
Radtech1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Trantor
Posts: 6,357
Default

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.
__________________
.
.

Be humble, for you are made of the earth. Be noble, for you are made of the stars.
Radtech1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #13
Aylwin
Member
 
Aylwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 564
Default

This review convinced me that the 17-40L was the best way to go: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-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.
__________________
Aylwin
5D MkII, a few lenses, and some other bits and bobs
Aylwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #14
Savagelogic
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Savagelogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of August 2004 (Tue)   #15
bmccall
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radtech1
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.
bmccall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should I upgrade a 5D? Please convince me. sootyvrs Canon EOS Digital Cameras 55 16th of June 2007 (Sat) 08:02
Convince me to get the EFS 10 - 22 fstop11.net Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 25 25th of October 2006 (Wed) 17:40
Help me convince my parents... calgaryphotographer Canon EOS Digital Cameras 98 28th of March 2006 (Tue) 10:01
help me convince myself i need this TC rabidmoose171 Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 29 4th of November 2005 (Fri) 18:31
SOMEBODY ... Please convince me! johneo Canon EOS Digital Cameras 15 23rd of May 2004 (Sun) 09:40


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:09.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.