Choice of super wide angle zoom lens

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/23/2004 12:05:51 PM · #1

Iâ��m going to buy a super wide angle zoom lens for our upcoming trip to the Caribbean. I really like Canon lenses, so, unless I hear some good reasons to go with something else, my choice is between these two:

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - Price After Rebate: $ 1,319.95

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L - Price After Rebate: $ 654.95

Iâ��d really like to have the faster 16-35 lens, but is the extra 1.2 stops really worth twice the price of the 17-40 lens?

Iâ��d love to hear any opinions - especially from anyone that has used both, or either, of these lenses.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/23/2004 12:22:45 PM · #2

To be wildly unhelpful - it depends.

Mostly, it depends on what you want to use it for. If you are going to be shooting landscapes then the extra stop is mostly meaningless, as you will (at least should) be shooting on a tripod, probably stopped down all the way or close to it. The extra mm on the wide end might be worthwhile, or not, again depending on how you plan on using it.

If you are going to be shooting wide open, then the extra stop may well be worth while, if you are going to be shooting in the dark or concert lighting etc.

The 2.8 will work better with the 1D focus system, but that doesn't have any advantage for the 10D. The f2.8 is probably quite a bit bigger and heavier - and may well require more expensive filters - I haven't looked though. Filters for the 77mm wide 17-40 are already expensive enough!

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

11/23/2004 12:23:33 PM · #3

I have the 17-40 and I have to say it's now my favourite lens. I took it to Europe with me this summer, and aside from shooting some rowing with my 70-200 it was never off the camera. I'm shocked that an ultra-wide zoom can be so excellent optically. Contrast, sharpness excellent. Built extremely well. I'm likely going to Barcelona next year for a school exchange and am going to get an Elan body and shoot some slide film with it, so looking forward to experimenting with it at full-frame for some really wide shots.

The prevailing opinion is if you *really* need 2.8, and can afford it without a second thought, get the 2.8. Otherwise, the high-ISO performance of DSLRs and the nature of wide-angle lenses means you can shoot handheld at pretty low light, and the f4 is the best option for mere mortals. Most reviews I have read suggest the same. The shot (linked below) of the inside of the cathedral in Seville was taken with the polariser still on (forgot about it...it was 50C outside so I wasn't thinking clearly) and it was still hand-holdable inside in very low light.

Europe 2004

Message edited by author 2004-11-23 12:36:53.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/23/2004 12:33:43 PM · #4

I have the Sigma 12-24 and I really like it, but if you are determined to get a canon lens, the 17-40 is probably the best choice UNLESS you really NEED that extra stop and are willing to sacrifice some image quality for it.

That said, the FOV with a 17mm (equiv to 27mm on a 35mm camera) lens is really just the beginning of the wide angle lenses and unless you put it on a film camera, can hardly be considered superwide.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/23/2004 12:35:46 PM · #5

I have the 16-35L 2.8 USM and it's an awsome tool....however it's not as "wide" as one would imaginge...that dang 1.6 factor. so I also have a 15mm f2.8 fisheye which is really funky but those the wide thing best.

the 17-40 is ok...but nothing like the 16-35, that 1mm is a big thing. I don't really care about the F difference because I do long exposures with these lenses.

Message edited by author 2004-11-23 12:37:18.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/23/2004 12:37:11 PM · #6

Both the 16-35L and 17-4L are great glass. The extra 1mm and extra 1 stop on the 16-35 are tough to justify unless you really really need them. I can't say I don't lust over the 16-35L, but I own a cheap Tamron 19-35 that's f/3.5 on the wide end (only half a stop slower than the 16-35) and pretty darn sharp. I'm not inclined to upgrade in that range, though I might think about a very wide prime to supplement. I'm really strongly considering the Canon 15mm fish for that, since PTlens can easily and nicely defish it.

mirdonamy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/23/2004 01:11:38 PM · #7

This is what i am saving for: //www.samyscamera.com/product.php?ItemNo=CANOC215332

It may take about 3 years to buy it though because my husband is a student and I can't even afford the bills... but that's what birthdays & holidays are for! $$$ only please :) heehee.

Anyhow, this lens comes highly recommended by local photographers and I got to play with it! Sooooo cool!

I haven't used the ones you are looking at, but the wider, the better :)

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/23/2004 01:18:47 PM · #8

Have you considered the Sigma 18-125 instead? I know it's not L glass, but it's pretty good, it gives you more range and it's a lot less money!

$250 at Samy's

I'd be curious to compare these lenses; is the L really that much better than the Sigma? (Sure, the Sigma is noisy when focusing, but it has soo much more range.)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/23/2004 01:24:15 PM · #9

Originally posted by mirdonamy:

as bizarre as this sounds, the 15mm fisheye is wider than the 14mm..but the 14mm does not have as much distortion as the 15mm.

mirdonamy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/23/2004 01:25:46 PM · #10

Originally posted by Gil P:

Originally posted by mirdonamy:
This is what i am saving for: //www.samyscamera.com/product.php?ItemNo=CANOC215332

It may take about 3 years to buy it though because my husband is a student and I can't even afford the bills... but that's what birthdays & holidays are for! $$$ only please :) heehee.

Anyhow, this lens comes highly recommended by local photographers and I got to play with it! Sooooo cool!

I haven't used the ones you are looking at, but the wider, the better :)

as bizarre as this sounds, the 15mm fisheye is wider than the 14mm..but the 14mm does not have as much distortion as the 15mm.

Yeah, I am going for the anti-distortion factor here :)

11/23/2004 01:28:28 PM · #11

Originally posted by mirdonamy:

Originally posted by Gil P:

Originally posted by mirdonamy:
This is what i am saving for: //www.samyscamera.com/product.php?ItemNo=CANOC215332

It may take about 3 years to buy it though because my husband is a student and I can't even afford the bills... but that's what birthdays & holidays are for! $$$ only please :) heehee.

Anyhow, this lens comes highly recommended by local photographers and I got to play with it! Sooooo cool!

I haven't used the ones you are looking at, but the wider, the better :)

as bizarre as this sounds, the 15mm fisheye is wider than the 14mm..but the 14mm does not have as much distortion as the 15mm.

Yeah, I am going for the anti-distortion factor here :)

Then it's an awsome choice, I've rented this lens a few times (I have the 15mm) and it's really really great, much sharper than my 16-35L. It is very expensive...but you truly get what you pay for here. so great choice!

cpurser

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/23/2004 01:43:40 PM · #12

I've not experimented with it much (I use my 50mm f1.4 most of the time), but the kit lens is a true 18mm. Is it THAT crappy of a lens?

Chad

11/23/2004 01:52:55 PM · #13

Originally posted by cpurser:

I've not experimented with it much (I use my 50mm f1.4 most of the time), but the kit lens is a true 18mm. Is it THAT crappy of a lens?

Chad

I'm not sure I understand your comment/question but if your asking if the 15mm Fisheye or the 14mm are in the same ballpark as the EFs-18-55....well it's like asking if a pari of roller skates can compare to a Porshe917 !! the EFs18-55 is one major piece of junk! but for 90$ what else could we expect!!!! when you pay 3K for a lens....it better not compare to a 90$ lens!!!!

11/23/2004 02:13:19 PM · #14

Thanks for all of the great info guys!

I will probably go with the 17-40mm lens. In almost every review Iâ��ve seen, the people rave about what a great lens it is (and what a crappy lens hood it has.) Iâ��d still like the faster 16-35, but I just canâ��t justify the huge price tag. No doubt my wife will be happy about it too.

I just wish that lenses would come down in price as fast as electronics. The Sandisk Extreme 1GB CF card that I bought less than a year ago for $329.95 is now only $99.95. I could buy 3 of them now for $30.10 less than I paid for my first one!

Jason

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/23/2004 02:16:42 PM · #15

I have 17-40mm for sale ... CHEAP! Just slightly abused, error I mean used! :)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/23/2004 02:37:40 PM · #16

Originally posted by Jason:

I have 17-40mm for sale ... CHEAP! Just slightly abused, error I mean used! :)

Oh ya? How much we talking? What condition is in?

Feel free to PM me if you prefer.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/23/2004 02:55:12 PM · #17

Originally posted by micknewton:

Originally posted by Jason:
I have 17-40mm for sale ... CHEAP! Just slightly abused, error I mean used! :)

Oh ya? How much we talking? What condition is in?

Feel free to PM me if you prefer.

You might want to look at this before you get too excited

OUCH!