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
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 05 Jul 2012 (Thursday) 00:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Brain says 17-40, heart says 16-35. Plan to buy today.

 
Neal1029
Member
Avatar
101 posts
Joined Jun 2011
     
Jul 05, 2012 11:13 |  #31

Buy the 16-35L you won't be disappointed.


5DMK III,16-35L 2.8, 24-70L 2.8, 70-200L 2.8 IS II, 580 EX II x 2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Bonbridge
Goldmember
Avatar
1,265 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 421
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Netherlands
     
Jul 05, 2012 11:16 |  #32

Buy the 17-40 and save your money to get a nice 35L next to it.


5DII + 6D | 16-35/4.0L IS | Σ35/1.4A | 40/2.8 | Σ85/1.4A | 70-200/2.8L IS II
iMac Retina 5k | i7 | 24Gb RAM | 512GB Flash | 4GB M295X

Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snowblower
Member
123 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jul 05, 2012 12:35 |  #33

Your getting a lot of good information here but as usual when I read these posts they create more conflict in my mind than sway me to choose one of the two lenses. Do yourself a favor and do what I did prior to making a decision. Rent them both and go through a side by side comparison taking shots of what you normally shoot. When I finished my testing the photos from each lens spoke for themselves and made my decision easy. I ended up with the 16-35 II and have never second guessed my decision nor will I ever sell this lens as long as I have my 5D Mk III.


Canon 1D-X Mk II | Canon 1D-X | Canon 5DIII |Canon 8-15 F4L Fisheye | Canon 16-35 F2.8L | Canon 24-70 F2.8L II | Canon 35 F1.4L II | Canon 50 F1.2L | Canon 85 F1.2L II | Canon 70-200 F2.8L II IS | Canon 400 f2.8L | Canon 200-400 f4 IS Extender 1.4xL | Canon 800 F5.6L | Speed Light 600 EX II x6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wissigle
Member
Avatar
204 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Brooklyn
     
Jul 05, 2012 12:56 |  #34

You have the 5D3 and you are considering a wide angle lens. Let's face it, you will be able to hand hold to 1/30 second easily, and with the high ISO capabilities of the Mk3, that significantly negates the need for f2.8 on the grounds of low light / indoors. From what I've read, the IQ differences are negliable. So, unless you want to shoot at 2.8 for shallow dept of field, and will do this often (probably unlikely), I can't see any point in going for the heavier 16-35 (with, as you say, a 82mm thread!). I've been mulling over a wide angle and pretty much decided there is nothing about the 16-35 that is a significant advantage. 17-40 or a Zeiss 21 for me I suspect.

So get the 17-40! Note: I have neither, so these are speculative comments!!


Wissigle
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yalemba
Senior Member
Avatar
635 posts
Joined Sep 2003
     
Jul 05, 2012 13:48 |  #35

I have a 16-35mm II, and like its versatility. However, since it produces noticeable distortion around 16mm, and not as sharp as my 50L prime, I am now looking into 24mm II or 24 TSE II.


Cameras: 1DX, 1Ds Mark III
Lenses: 24 TSE II, 50L, 85L II, 24-70L II, 70-200L II
Flash: 600 EX with STE3, Einstein

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eyal
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
569 posts
Joined May 2011
     
Jul 05, 2012 14:04 |  #36

Thank you all for the input.

I eventually decided to go for a 17-40 F/4. I'll get it tomorrow as today the new grip arrive, and I was too anxious to try it out.
Mainly, because it cost half the price of the 16-35 :oops:, and as people pointed out, a bit of ISO playing will be just fine.

Cheers all :)


5DMarkIII+Grip | Extender 1.4x III / 2x III
16-35mm F/2.8L II | 24-70mm F/2.8L II | 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II
Σ 50mm F/1.4 | 85mm F/1.2L II | 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro | 135mm F/2L | 300mm F/2.8L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KarlGB77
Senior Member
556 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Delaware
     
Jul 05, 2012 14:07 |  #37

So now that you are totally confused.

LOL

Best of luck.


Canon 5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, T2i (2), 24-105 f4LIS, 17-40 f4L, 70-200f4L IS, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 100 2.8, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, 15-85 f4-5.6 IS, 60 2.8, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 430 EX II, 580 EX II, Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod w/ 498RC2, Calumet 8121 Tripod, Manfrotto 679B Monopod w/ 234 RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
D ­ K
Member
55 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: On a boat somewhere
     
Jul 05, 2012 17:47 |  #38

I just posted a similar thread.....

I'm going with the 17-40 for a couple of reasons.

1. the 5d3 has excellent high ISO performance, so the extra stop didn't play that big of a role.
2. looking through the lens photo archives, I stopped a few times to say: which lens is that...and it ended up being the 17-40.

Hope that helps.


5D3 | 16-35 L II | 24-105L | 40 pancake | Xpro 1 | X100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eric
Goldmember
Avatar
1,253 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: MA
     
Jul 05, 2012 19:56 |  #39

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14673374 (external link)
Exactly...it's a personal preference, but I really don't think it's a reason to even consider this lens. Even wide open at MFD the DOF is just so-so, at least to me :)

exactly, a personal preference...


Eric Darlington Photography (external link)
flickr (external link) / [URL="[URL]http://eric​darlington.500px.com/"​]500px / [URL="[URL]http://www.​facebook.com/EricDarli​ngtonPhotography"]Face​book
[URL="[URL]http://phot​ography-on-the.net/forum/showpost​.php?p=8612297&postcou​nt=1945"]Tools

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coldcuts113
Senior Member
Avatar
930 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: NY
     
Jul 05, 2012 20:54 |  #40

You'll be happy with it.


Nikon D4, Sony RX10, Sony RX100.
Past Gear: (most recently) 5D3, L's, etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SOX ­ 404
Senior Member
Avatar
574 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2006
Location: I'm a nomad
     
Jul 06, 2012 04:02 |  #41

Eyal wrote in post #14674490 (external link)
Thank you all for the input.

I eventually decided to go for a 17-40 F/4. I'll get it tomorrow as today the new grip arrive, and I was too anxious to try it out.
Mainly, because it cost half the price of the 16-35 :oops:, and as people pointed out, a bit of ISO playing will be just fine.

Cheers all :)

Good choice.

If you are taking landscape/ cityscape, f/2.8 is useless. You want to play above f/8. What you need is a good quality tripod and have your camera sit on it and enjoy your brand new 17-40 :)


AJ
1 x Canon 5DSR | 2 x Canon 5D2 | 8-15L | 16-35L | 17-40L (dead) | 50L | 85L | 100L | 135L | 180L | 70-200 2.8L IS
Aquatica UW Housing | INON Z240 | Ikelite DS-161 | Sola 600 | 2 x Sola 2000
My Flickr  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sloanbj
Senior Member
Avatar
297 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
     
Jul 06, 2012 06:25 |  #42

On top of everything else, 17-40 is also one of the lightest L lenses. You really can't go wrong with it.


Flickr (external link) 5Dii * Canon 50 * 85 * 17-40L * 24-105L * 180L * 100-400L * 580ex ii
Film: Contax | Rolleiflex | Pentax

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marco2011
Member
139 posts
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jul 06, 2012 07:10 |  #43

You already know well about both lens, and you have permission, so why waisting time instead of buying? :D
I'd definitely go for 16-35


Eos 550D Gripped :D Canon Speedlite 430ex ii :D Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM :D Canon 18-55mm kit lens :(

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
adamo99
Goldmember
1,173 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 37
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Mississauga, ON
     
Jul 06, 2012 09:20 |  #44

Keebert wrote in post #14672784 (external link)
Since you already have the 24-105, with the 17-40 you're really only buying a 17-24. About $100/mm in FL.

The 16-35 is a totally new lens for your line-up. Much wider & faster.

1mm is 'much wider', and a 'totally new lens for your line-up'? Really? 1mm? :rolleyes:

OP, what do you take pictures of? If you're shooting landscapes, tripod-mounted, you won't miss the extra stop. I highly doubt you'll notice the extra 1mm on the wide end either.

FWIW, I picked up the 17-40L, and absolutely love it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LowriderS10
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,170 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Mar 2008
Location: South Korea / Canada
     
Jul 06, 2012 09:26 |  #45

Congrats to both of the new L owners in this thread. You guys are going to like the 17-40L. I mean, sure, we 16-35 owners will scoff at you, but don't mind us. KIDDING! Seriously, though, they're very capable lenses, and the 1mm difference is not all that massive, and the 5mm at the end, while small, may come in handy.


-=Prints For Sale at PIXELS=- (external link)
-=Facebook=- (external link)
-=Flickr=- (external link)

-=Gear=-

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

6,269 views & 0 likes for this thread
Brain says 17-40, heart says 16-35. Plan to buy today.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is countrygirl67
895 guests, 278 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, 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.