| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/23/2004 02:29:06 PM · #1 |
I'm considering purchasing one of these two lenses and haven't decided which one. Is the 16-35 f/2.8 worth twice the money? If so, how?
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 02:36:03 PM · #2 |
Check out the comparison at Luminous Landscape LINKETY-LINK
edit: I am so addlepated sometimes............
Message edited by author 2004-06-23 14:52:59.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 02:46:26 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Check out the comparison at fredmiranda.com LINKETY-LINK |
Ok.. I read this...
Looks like the 17-40 is better at 17mm than the 16-35. It looks like the 16-35 is better at 35mm than the 17-40. I'm more interested in this lens at the wider end so the 17-40 may be a better choice. I'm disappointed that there is not a 100% crop example at the 24mm range.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 02:50:59 PM · #4 |
John I have the 16-35 f/2.8 and love it. Now if you don't need the f/2.8 and can live with the f/4 I'd get the 17-40, it's the best value for your money IMHO. I got the 16-35 because I wanted the extra stop. You can't go wrong with either.
edit:
Remember that the extra 1mm translates into a 25.6mm at 16 mm vs a 27.2mm at 17mm with the 1.6x crop factor.
Message edited by author 2004-06-23 14:55:17.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 02:53:42 PM · #5 |
You should also check this out:
//www.burren.cx/photo/ultrawide/
I've been using my 17-40mm since I bought it one year ago and I really like that lens. It would be better ofcourse if it was brighter than 4.0, but that hasn't bothered me much to this point.
good luck choosing,
Amason |
|
|
|
06/23/2004 03:30:44 PM · #6 |
I have owned both lenses and found them to be very comparable optically. The 16-35 that I had was quite sharp at 16mm. Really the difference you are paying for is a 1mm wider lens (might make some difference at some point?) and the f/2.8 aperture. If you feel like you really need these things then the 16-35 is the lens for you. If you can live with f/4 then the 17-40 is the lens to get. Build quality, optical performance and pretty much everything else is the same between the two lenses.
Greg
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 05:28:38 PM · #7 |
John,
Recently had a similar dilema in the Nikkor group (17-35 f/2.8 vs 18-35 f/3.5-4).....ended up choosing the f/2.8
When comparing the two side by side there was a distinct difference in build quality and "heft". Also a reveiwer that I respect rated the 2.8 as one of Nikkor's finest lenses. I suspect a similar difference in the Canon line. My choice was simply one between very good versus the very best. I didn't "need" it but I sure do like it.
[as I am considering some photojournalism work, this particular lense is a staple of the pro's in that line, so it was an attempt at preparation]
Message edited by author 2004-06-23 17:31:49.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 05:56:31 PM · #8 |
I have the 16-35/2.8. So far, every lens I own is ƒ/2.8 or faster. This was a decision I made before I even got my 10D for the simple reason that Canon's 1-series bodies have 7 high-precision autofocus cross-type sensors that are only high precision with ƒ/2.8 and faster lenses. I figured that someday, I might upgrade to a body that had these HP AF sensors, and I'd want the benefit they provide. Now that I have an 1D Mark II, I'm glad I made that decision when buying lenses. =]
That being said, wide-open, my 16-35 is much sharper at 16mm than it is at 35mm, so I think it just depends on "luck of the draw". |
|
|
|
06/23/2004 06:12:12 PM · #9 |
Thanks for all the input. I'm still trying to decide. The f/4 - f/2.8 difference doesn't mean a lot to me for this particular lens. Image quality, as always, is an issue. The luminous landscape article that was posted here earlier would indicate to me that the f/4 lens is sharper at 17mm than the f/2.8 lens is. This lens would likely be used at the 17mm end a majority of the time.
My Sigma 12-24 is a nice lens but it's nowhere near as sharp as I would like it to be. It's definitely wide though. I'm looking for an in between lens for the 12-24 and the 28-70. I don't use the 12-24 that often, but when I do, I can't do without it.
Autofocus is something that doesn't make much difference to me either. As time passes, I find myself using AF less and less in favor of manual focus. I haven't had any issues with AF on any of the lenses I have owned though. They all seem to work fine, but I often find that AF doesn't choose the point of focus that I would prefer. There is no way around that other than manual focus.
I think i'll sit on this thought for a while and consider the options...
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 10:57:17 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
I have the 16-35/2.8. So far, every lens I own is ƒ/2.8 or faster. This was a decision I made before I even got my 10D for the simple reason that Canon's 1-series bodies have 7 high-precision autofocus cross-type sensors that are only high precision with ƒ/2.8 and faster lenses. I figured that someday, I might upgrade to a body that had these HP AF sensors, and I'd want the benefit they provide. Now that I have an 1D Mark II, I'm glad I made that decision when buying lenses. =]
That being said, wide-open, my 16-35 is much sharper at 16mm than it is at 35mm, so I think it just depends on "luck of the draw". |
Eddy which lotto did you win? =)
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 11:17:08 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm considering purchasing one of these two lenses and haven't decided which one. Is the 16-35 f/2.8 worth twice the money? If so, how? |
Depends how much you will use it indoor,F4 would be a bad idea.
I like the 20 mm F2.8 paid 300 $ and does the wide job good !
But if I had extra 1000 $ definatelly 16-35 mm.
Message edited by author 2004-06-23 23:19:32. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 04:19:47 PM EDT.
