| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2009 06:21:33 PM · #1 |
Thinking about buying a wide angle lens - 17-40mm or 16-35mm?
Obviously the 17-40mm is loads cheaper and from what I read the IQ is very good indeed. Is the slightly wider angle or the faster aperture something that owners wouldn't do without? Should I not compromise and fork out for the 16-35mm?
(I already own the 24-105 f/4L)
Thanks
Paul
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 06:27:37 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Thinking about buying a wide angle lens - 17-40mm or 16-35mm?
Obviously the 17-40mm is loads cheaper and from what I read the IQ is very good indeed. Is the slightly wider angle or the faster aperture something that owners wouldn't do without? Should I not compromise and fork out for the 16-35mm?
(I already own the 24-105 f/4L)
Thanks
Paul |
I can't speak to the IQ of the 16-35, but the 17-40 is excellent. The 2.8 vs 4.0 doesn't seem like that big of a deal(depending on what you plan to use it for). I can only think of a couple of times where I wished i had 2.8. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 06:28:55 PM · #3 |
| I bought a copy of the 17-40 from a DPC'er recently, and to be honest I have been more impressed than I thought possible with the performance. There is some softness in the corners at f/4, but it's *way* in the corners. Sure, I'd love the 16-35, but the 17-40 is a great value and meets my needs. If I need really high resolution for landscape work I'm probably going to use a longer focal length and stitch anyway. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 06:33:21 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I can't speak to the IQ of the 16-35, but the 17-40 is excellent. The 2.8 vs 4.0 doesn't seem like that big of a deal(depending on what you plan to use it for). I can only think of a couple of times where I wished i had 2.8. |
I couldn't agree more. The 17-40 is my main lens. I have wondered though about the advantages of f2.8.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 06:39:22 PM · #5 |
I have seen it written that if you want to go for the 16-35, then the mk II is appreciably better than the original.
The only trouble is it also costs a lot more. In terms of price /performance you might be better going for the 17-40. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 06:42:02 PM · #6 |
| I've used both lenses a fair amount and the only time I like the 16-35 is night photography. That stop of difference can be big then, but otherwise the 17-40 is a much better deal for virtually the same thing. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 06:42:39 PM · #7 |
I have owned the 17-40, the 16-35 and now the 16-35 II. The 'older' 16-35 was in my opinion on par with the 17-40 (except the stop) while the II version is much improved - particularly in the corners.
If you can afford it; I would suggest you spring for the 16-35 II. The difference from the 17-40 is absolutely noticeable in addition to the extra stop.
You can check it out here: Fred Miranda review of the 16-35 2.8L II
There are obvious advantages with the extra stop - also in well lit conditions. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 07:41:20 PM · #8 |
Thanks for the feedback - food for thought! The 17-40mm seems to be well thought of and a bit of a bargain.
Cheers
Paul |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 08:32:52 PM · #9 |
17-40mm is a stunning lens. I don't regret buying mine for a moment!
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:10:13 PM · #10 |
I bought a 17-40 from another member here and I have since sold it. I sold it to fund a 24-70 that I wanted. Of course I spent the money and never did get the 24-70. I loved that lens!! Super sharp!
Here are a few examples
  
Dumb ass! I am.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:15:38 PM · #11 |
| 16-35 is great, go for it. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:26:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Thanks for the feedback - food for thought! The 17-40mm seems to be well thought of and a bit of a bargain.
Cheers
Paul |
I agree with the general support for the 17-40. Splendid lens, and it gives a great natural vignette on the FF sensor at the wide end and is very sharp at the typical landscape apertures, etc. I've rarely desired a wider aperture then f/4 when shooting with this lens.
This was shot at f/5.6. You can get a decently blurred background for environmental portraits
This was taken at f/4. Nice narrow DOF with decent background blur for a wide angle lens. I think I was about 2 feet away from her.
 |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 10:08:22 PM · #13 |
I want to get a better lens....maybe santa will bring me one or I win the lottery
|
|
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: 04/24/2024 11:53:47 PM EDT.
