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

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 22 Mar 2011 (Tuesday) 17:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

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

 
mjordanke
Member
79 posts
Joined Aug 2007
     
Mar 22, 2011 17:10 |  #1

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?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Refresh ­ Image
Senior Member
557 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Mar 22, 2011 17:14 |  #2
bannedPermanent ban

mjordanke wrote in post #12071705 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eelnoraa
Goldmember
1,798 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
     
Mar 22, 2011 18:05 |  #3

mjordanke wrote in post #12071705 (external link)
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.


5Di, 5Diii, 28, 50, 85, 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200F2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Savas ­ K
Goldmember
1,425 posts
Joined May 2007
     
Mar 22, 2011 20:39 |  #4

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).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
booja
Goldmember
1,638 posts
Likes: 103
Joined Jan 2008
Location: houston, tx
     
Mar 22, 2011 20:48 |  #5

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dandan1
Goldmember
1,223 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
     
Mar 22, 2011 21:43 |  #6

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


ISOlution|Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tsmith
Formerly known as Bluedog_XT
Avatar
10,429 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jul 2005
Location: South_the 601
     
Mar 22, 2011 21:54 |  #7

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? (external link) ... its pertains to the first edition 16-35.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cpforyou
Senior Member
283 posts
Joined Apr 2009
     
Mar 22, 2011 23:24 |  #8

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.


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Savas ­ K
Goldmember
1,425 posts
Joined May 2007
     
Mar 23, 2011 01:15 |  #9

Tsmith wrote in post #12073571 (external link)
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? (external link) ... 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)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tsmith
Formerly known as Bluedog_XT
Avatar
10,429 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jul 2005
Location: South_the 601
     
Mar 23, 2011 07:17 |  #10

Savas K wrote in post #12074509 (external link)
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 ... ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hiding ­ Behind ­ Glass
Member
113 posts
Joined Feb 2011
     
Mar 23, 2011 07:29 |  #11

mjordanke wrote in post #12071705 (external link)
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 :D Soooo...it's just a thought :D


My Gear list, And a huge hunger to become a great photographer!
FB Page (external link)
Blog (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Capturing history, and making it tangible.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
Avatar
2,509 posts
Gallery: 167 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1220
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Wiltshire, UK
     
Mar 23, 2011 11:50 |  #12

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


Regards, Gareth Cooper GMCPhotographics
"If youre happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then youÒ’re having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List GMCPhotographics (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airbutchie
Not too crunchy
Avatar
13,412 posts
Gallery: 413 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 8753
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Monrovia, CA
     
Mar 23, 2011 11:57 |  #13

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


Hi. My name is Butch...
Complete Gear List | Flickr Vault (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hiding ­ Behind ­ Glass
Member
113 posts
Joined Feb 2011
     
Mar 24, 2011 07:45 |  #14

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

LOL!


My Gear list, And a huge hunger to become a great photographer!
FB Page (external link)
Blog (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Capturing history, and making it tangible.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

4,057 views & 0 likes for this thread, 11 members have posted to it.
16-35 mk I vs 17-40 for wedding photography
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Moonraker
837 guests, 204 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.