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 10 Jan 2014 (Friday) 08:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35 2.8 or 17- 40 f4 ?

 
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Jan 10, 2014 23:06 |  #16

Mark-B wrote in post #16595731 (external link)
This makes no sense. You have no problem with a 24mm or 28mm prime, but you are opposed to a zoom that covers those same focal lengths?

That seems to be somewhat of a trend on these forums, I cannot for the life of me understand why.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,417 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3968
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Jan 10, 2014 23:12 |  #17

daugirdas wrote in post #16595157 (external link)
24-70 II

This!


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 16 1.4 - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Jan 10, 2014 23:34 |  #18

You can also take a look at this 16-35 vs 17-40 video (external link) that SLR Lounge put out yesterday.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DamianOz
Senior Member
696 posts
Joined Jul 2011
     
Jan 10, 2014 23:51 |  #19

I would choose the 16-35 over the 17-40

However, I rarely use mine unless I need wider than 24mm
The 24-70 is sharper and covers a more useable range on FF for my liking
I also have the new Sigma 24-105, it has an even more useful range, is sharper than the 16-35, but is f/4
It really comes down to the style of photography you prefer.

Best Ultrawide = 16-35II
Best general use for indoors and out = 24-70II
Best general use for outdoors if not requiring f/2.8 = S24-105


Bodies - Canon EOS 5DIII | EOS 6D
Primes - TS-E24 f/3.5L II | Σ 35mm F1.4 DG Art | EF 85 f/1.2L II | EF 135 f/2L
Zooms - EF 16-35 f/2.8L II | EF 24-70 f/2.8L II | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | Σ 24-105mm F/4 DG OS Art | Σ 120-300mm F/2.8 DG OS Sport

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cubdriver
Goldmember
Avatar
1,797 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 357
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Litchfield Co, CT
     
Jan 11, 2014 00:41 |  #20

I'd go with the 16-35 for the extra stop of aperture, but I also like to shoot in available light. If you shoot mainly in bright conditions or stopped down, this is less relevant to your situation. Both are good lenses.

-Pat


Smugmug site: http://pmanning.smugmu​g.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jan 11, 2014 06:04 |  #21
bannedPermanent ban

Mark-B wrote in post #16595731 (external link)
This makes no sense. You have no problem with a 24mm or 28mm prime, but you are opposed to a zoom that covers those same focal lengths?

Where did I say that I was opposed to the zoom. I personally like to use primes for my walk around mainly due to weight. In fact I have a T2i which I attach a Zuiko 24mm and it is very compact. I also quite often just take my X100 with me. The zoom is fine, but is a little hefty to lug for the day.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jan 11, 2014 06:05 |  #22
bannedPermanent ban

Sirrith wrote in post #16595780 (external link)
That seems to be somewhat of a trend on these forums, I cannot for the life of me understand why.

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and you might understand.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Jan 11, 2014 07:45 |  #23

Hogloff wrote in post #16596182 (external link)
Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and you might understand.

Where was I referring to you? I was just expressing agreement with what Mark pointed out, as a general trend on these forums to accept wide primes as walkaround lenses, then immediately turn around and say zooms covering the same focal length are not acceptable as walkaround lenses.

edit: But now that I have read your post, I still don't see why my comment is wrong?
You don't recommend the 17-40 because it is an "UWA", then go and suggest the 24 and 28 primes, which are wider than the 17-40 at any setting over 28mm.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,214 posts
Gallery: 77 photos
Likes: 307
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Jan 11, 2014 08:10 |  #24

Mark-B wrote in post #16595727 (external link)
Apparently the 24-35mm range is very useful on a 24-105 but not at all on a 16-35. Weird how that works. I could easily get by with a 16-35 and 70-200 as my only lenses.

I find the 41-105mm range more useful in a single "walk around" lens situation than the 17-23mm range most times, which is why I usually prefer using my 24-105L over my 17-40L when taking only a single lens. The OP asked for advice on a walk around lens, which to me means for when you want to take a single lens.

If I only had a 17-40L and 70-200L, I would find myself needing to bring both lenses along almost all the time, and there are times I prefer to walk around without needing to carry extra lenses. For example, our home town has an ice sculpture festival this weekend. I will take only my 5D3 + 24-105L, as changing lenses in that crowd and weather conditions is cumbersome (I've done it in past years).

When I want to "walk around" really light, I bring the 5D3 and 40mm f/2.8 pancake.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Jan 11, 2014 08:13 |  #25

I'll play devil's advocate: Tokina 17-35mm f/4 or 16-28mm f/2.8 and use the money you saved on a 50mm prime or standard zoom.


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
urizzm
Member
37 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jan 11, 2014 09:07 |  #26

Have the 24-70mm f/2.8 II and love it!!




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

2,824 views & 0 likes for this thread
16-35 2.8 or 17- 40 f4 ?
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 Karteek007
959 guests, 317 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.