17-40 Regrets

I got this lens last week and have only shot a few frames with it, I keep thinking I should have just got the 16-35II.

I mainly got it for an upcoming trip to Europe in May and don't want to be wishing I had 2.8 when I'm 15000 kms from home.

I'm sure I could take it back to where I got it and get the 16-35II. What would you do and why?

I'd keep the 17-40. 2.8 isn't really worth twice the price, especially since IQ isn't much improved if at all, and even less since you have a 6D which has the 2nd best high ISO performance of any Canon camera to date. You should easily be able to achieve hand holdable SS with the 17-40 at any focal length even in the darkest of churches. I was able to do so with my 450D and the 10-22, which maxed out at 1600 ISO.

I really like my 17-40 but then again I haven't really tried a 16-35 only once have I held one, I imagine it is really nice but there is the price difference versus how much you will use it and also the weight - its a brick up to the 17-40,

Life is too short for regrets...just try to enjoy your photography what ever kit you use.

If you have the extra funds I say go for it. I've had 3 different copies of the 17-40L. Even though they were sharp they weren't fast enough for me in low lighting. I plan on picking up a 16-35 II in the near future.

That's why I went with the 17-40 Tom, I thought I could pick up the extra stop with the 6d's ISO capabilities but I've just been having second thoughts. Luckily cash is no problems, but at the same time there's no point spending it if not nesicary.

What are you planning to shoot with it? i assume indoor (such as churches) and outdoor landscape?

I would just take a travel tripod or just bump the ISO. You need to stop down the lens anyway...f2.8 is of no use imo.

also 17-40 is actually slightly sharper than 16-35 across the range.

Like others state, just bump your ISO up one stop to make up for fstop difference. The only thing you lose really is thinner DOF should you ever really need it.

My advice is this. If you're having regrets now, you should do what you want to do (buy the 16-35) so that you don't come back from your trip and look through your shots with same regret at top of mind and with every image, be critical and ruin your memories of the trip

After a few shots at f4, assuming landscapes, any regrets of not having spent hundreds of dollars more will soon dissipate.

If you are really worried about the f4 vs 2.8, you have the Sigma 35 1.4.

If 35 isn't wide enough, Zeiss makes a 25 f2 that would also make a bigger difference than just going from f4 to 2.8. Also canons 24 1.4 is available for even more speed and width, at a slightly higher expense.

Under 24mm I don't think you should need anything faster than f4 to meet 1/focal length.

If lens speed is a primary factor for you, you might want to just get on with prime lenses

35mm absolutely will be insufficient in the streets of Europe on a FF body; even 25mm might be a bit narrow. Personally I was never satisfied until I had 24mm and occasionally 20mm on my film SLR.

Tripods are not permitted in many places, particularly indoors.

The absolute need for a fast lens is not like the film days, when we had to struggle with ISO 400 as the fastest film. But given the exceedingly high intolerance among many digital shooters for any noise (which is nothing compared to film grain) resorting to high ISO just might not be acceptable for a given shooter.

As it seems that El Pedro has been into DSLRs for less than a year, hopefully he has a bit of tolerance for higher ISO shots.

So El, what happened to this sentiment you posted some time ago?

El Pedro wrote in post #15506480
Another 6D convert from the 60D. I'm sure you'll love it as much as I do.

I too was impressed by the 24-105, I was shooting with the 17-55 on the 60D and thought I would miss having 2.8 on my standard zoom but as you say f/4 on the 6D performs great.

^^^^^^^^^^^

My opinions on gear changed dramatically during my first few years of photography as I learned more. And, I'm not vain enough to think that I won't continue to learn more in the coming years and have different opinions then, too. I wouldnt hold this against him...

As for the 16-35, I cant think of many (any?) times when I've used a lens that wide and my goal hasnt been to MAXIMIZE depth of field. 2.8 isn't doing you any favors in this regard and the optical performance between the two lenses. I would think very carefully about what type of shot you think 2.8 will help you with and then make sure you don't need more depth of field to go along with your faster shutter speed.

+1 on Wilt's comment about UWA on streets in Europe. I am holding out for the 14-24 rumored to come out

Wilt wrote in post #15527590
35mm absolutely will be insufficient in the streets of Europe on a FF body; even 25mm might be a bit narrow. Personally I was never satisfied until I had 24mm and occasionally 20mm on my film SLR.

Tripods are not permitted in many places, particularly indoors.

The absolute need for a fast lens is not like the film days, when we had to struggle with ISO 400 as the fastest film. But given the exceedingly high intolerance among many digital shooters for any noise (which is nothing compared to film grain) resorting to high ISO just might not be acceptable for a given shooter.

I was going to post this aswell. The street in Europe (in many "older" cities) tend to call for WIDE focal lengths, so I'd suggest something at/below 30mm.

Tripods are nearly universally forbidden, at least in any building with age (nearly all of them), the reasoning for this is that since there are about ten thousand tourists coming through everyday (each with a camera) it would wear too much on the stone floors to have that many tripods chipping away at the weathered stone. Yeah, I know, not likely, but also non-negotiable, so ya gotta accept it.

I have lenses from f/stop 1.8 to blah blah... and in many churchs, musuems, universities and such, I need to set my camera at f2.8 or better to get a handheld shot, and that's with a ISO 1600 preset limit on my camera. Take that into consideration.

Other than that, my suggestion for anyone coming from America (to Europe) would be to explore the backstreets of any major/minor city you travel to. You are sure to find some amazing places that haven't been santitized for the tourist crowd.