16-35 mk I vs 17-40 for wedding photography

Hi,

I tend to buy the 16-35 mk I owing to 2.8 capability but I hear so much that the 17-40 has greater photo quality.

Whats your opinion?

mjordanke wrote in post #12071705
Hi,

I tend to buy the 16-35 mk I owing to 2.8 capability but I hear so much that the 17-40 has greater photo quality.

Whats your opinion?

Even if that were true you should not care. The paramaunt is taking a picture no matter what and 16-35 is twice more capable in low light.

mjordanke wrote in post #12071705
Hi,

I tend to buy the 16-35 mk I owing to 2.8 capability but I hear so much that the 17-40 has greater photo quality.

Whats your opinion?

If is because the populartion owning 17-40L is much larger than that of 16-35L I or II due to the cost. More owner, more appraise.

If low light is your target, then one stop of light is always better than increamental sharpness gain.

That is, if there were an incremental sharpness gain in the 17-40 to begin with. It's actually the other way around - you get an incremental sharpness gain with the 16-35 II, plus the bonus of a stop of light. What is the question is whether it is worth the expense for the photographer. Some think it is an enormous price difference. I think the enormous difference is the cost of one stop going from the 200 f/2.8 to the 200 f/2 IS. (Thousands more dollars).

ive had both... i prefer the 16-35 for sure

Owned the 17-40L before, now have the 16-35L II and never looked back. Much, much better than the 17-40L.

It is kinda ironic as I've read POTN members here that have had both and favor the 17-40L for the simple fact that there wasn't enough increase in IQ to justify the cost. Now as for the original posters question about the discontinued 16-35 Lens ... yes the 17-40 in just about all comparisons bested the first edition on this lens.

Read this from Luminous Landscapes: Is There a Winner? ... its pertains to the first edition 16-35.

I use the 17-40 f/4L and use it for wedding photography. For outdoors wedding photography, I don't see the need for the extra stop of light.

For indoors receptions, since my style is using bounce flash and/or off-camera flash, the need for an extra stop of light is not really there since I generally like the background to fall off pretty quick with the subjects as the main focus of the picture.

For indoors group shots which can be fairly tight, I would not want to shoot at f/2.8 anyways because if I'm at a table taking a group shot at 17 - 20mm focal length and the subjects might be 6 - 8 feet away, I'd want to be at f/4 or f/5.6 to make sure everyone is in focus.

I always think about upgrading, but for me, since I have the 17-40 f/4L already, I would rather spend my money on other lens.

Tsmith wrote in post #12073571
It is kinda ironic as I've read POTN members here that have had both and favor the 17-40L for the simple fact that there wasn't enough increase in IQ to justify the cost. Now as for the original posters question about the discontinued 16-35 Lens ... yes the 17-40 in just about all comparisons bested the first edition on this lens.

Read this from Luminous Landscapes: Is There a Winner? ... its pertains to the first edition 16-35.

Not ironic that you arrive with your observation while being an f/4 and up user as your sig indicates.

(Canon EOS 7D| Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS | Canon 70-200mm f/4L | Canon 400mm)

Savas K wrote in post #12074509
Not ironic that you arrive with your observation while being an f/4 and up user as your sig indicates.

No I've just learned over the years unless one isn't concerned about the money involved that f/2.8 lens aren't always the Holy Grail of IQ. The reason I've chose the lens that I have is strictly for their cost in relation to producing high quality results, with all three producing tack sharp results at f/4 and the one f/5.6.

With today's cameras often times giving useable results up to ISO 3200 without much concern of noise makes an f/4 quite more useable. After all it's only 1 stop difference.

Now if it was where I had a non concern toward the cost involved ... I'd certainly have a wide angle f/1.4 or 400mm f/2.8 lens ...

mjordanke wrote in post #12071705
Hi,

I tend to buy the 16-35 mk I owing to 2.8 capability but I hear so much that the 17-40 has greater photo quality.

Whats your opinion?

Why dont you try to check out a 17-35mm? I have never had any problems with mine, and I've had it for almost 10 years now. I'ts a great lens, and it kinda matches up with all my 77mm filters too Soooo...it's just a thought

It all depends if you need that extra stop....unfortunatly, you'll only find THAT out when shooting a wedding...

On a side note... Do you have a full frame or cropper?

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #12076725
It all depends if you need that extra stop....unfortunatly, you'll only find THAT out when shooting a wedding...

LOL!