Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hi


Does anyone have any personal input / experience regarding the 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L II and the and 17-40mm f/4 USM L. I want to use this a wedding shoot and general gathering shoots. Does the price justify the 16

there is a noticable difference in image quality between the two, at least according to the review and sample pics! Hence the price (as well as 2.8 vs 4)

Go here for a comparison and review.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

I have tried both lenses and still have neither

f4 to f2.8 is 1 stop

A lot of people love the 17-40 for the price.

If I save up some cash I will buy the 17-40.
If I win the lottory I will get the 16-35.

Tim

Buy the 17-40. If it's not good enough for you, sell it then buy the 16-35.

OR

Buy the 16-35. If it's too good for you, sell it then buy the 17-40.

actually rent both and check them side by side before bying

Question: What body do you have? Cropped or full frame?

The 16-35 is a better lense but not by much imho. The full stop difference is a bigger deal but neither is particularly fast, especially for poor indoor wedding lighting conditions. For outdoor shots both will suffice. For indoors I suggest a fast prime. 35mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4 or 50mm F1.8 depending on your budget.

No competition: Nikon 14-24 f/2.8

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon142 ... 17mm1.html

Will need a special adapter.

There isn't much difference to be honest. I've had both, but not the 16-35 Mark II (which is reported to be better). F/2.8 is not all the fast and for scenic landscape or outdoor shooting the 17-40 f/4 should suffice. The 24L is in a different class if you really need wide angle and aperture.

@ OP: Another option I've seen done at weddings is to bring in addition light via flashes (e.g. Canon ST-E2 + 580EX run up on a light stand). Similar to that idea, Dave Hobby (of Strobist) sets up two SB-28s with PWs at opposite ends of the room at ~1/4 power (mileage will vary of course) - idea being that the closer flash acts as your key or main light and the second as an off-axis fill or backlight. So no matter which end of the room you are at, you'll still have decent lighting. That way you could save some money with the 17-40L, which is still a fine lens. Like others have said already, 2.8 really isn't that fast in a dimly lit room.

Hope this helps!

Hi Seren Dipity

I have the 40D. Thanks for the input. Yes I agree that f stop is a bigger deal because some churches don't allow flash, thats why I thought the f stop would be the only thing to consider. I already have the very budgeted 50mm 1.8. Great for walk about and social photo but for wedding and parties not so great, having to stand to close to ppl, I lose the natural shots. Thanks for the suggestions

Yes timras

I have to agree with you about winning the lotto before even think of purchasing the 16 to 35. Thanks for the input I think I will head to vistek and try both

THanks

Thanks sliua

Never even considered crossing the two brands, but after review your attached article I might have to consider it, the quality of the nikkor is indeed stunning. However by using the adapter will I still have to same functions on my canon?

Thanks

Thanks everyone for their input

I will test both of them thoroughly before even considering purchase it and as sliua suggested I might even try the nikkor lens.

GL

The 24 f/1.4 is great.

did you tried or own both lenses? because sample pics vs personal experience with lens are two different things.

To OP: if you are not planning to upgrade to FF anytime soon, how about 17-55? its 2.8 with IS, maybe cheaper than the 16-35 as well.. Im still using it on my 40D if i need that range.

For weddings and gatherings on a 40D, I would suggest the 17-55/2.8 IS as well.

no, I never tried any of those, I am broke and with no job

@ Clearwater (OP):

Here's another thought ... was talking another photographer who shoots strictly on 1.6x bodies, his primary setup is a 40D + 10-22 + 70-200. His reasoning, you can get "some seriously funky shots" (his words, not mine) and he also raised the point that a 16mm or 17mm on a 1.6x sensor really isn't even that wide (doesn't even get you 24mm).

Just something to think about anyhow. I'm personally not a fan of the ultra wide angle length but to each their own. If it suits your style and you like it, going to either extreme could work. And I think the EFS 10-22 + EF 70-200/4 L would only set you back $1100-1200. Not bad for a fully working setup. (Considering you could drop that much money alone on a 24-105, 24-70 or even your 16-35.)

When I shot weddings with a pair of 40D's, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS stayed on one body pretty much all the time. The other 40D would usually have the 135mm f/2L or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. At my final wedding with the 40D's, 71% of the shots were taken with the 17-55. 14% were with the 135/2, 12% with the 30/1.4, and 3% with the 10-22mm.

The optical qualities of the 16-35/2.8L and 17-40/4L are comparable. The salient differences are the max aperture and, of course, the price. I know of many wedding photographers who are much more comfortable shooting with f/4 lenses (like the 17-40 and the 24-105 f/4L IS) because they can use ISO 6400 on the 5D Mark II and 1D Mark III.

Having said that, the 1mm difference at the wide end isn't huge, and neither are terribly wide on a 1.6x crop body like the 40D. The 17-55mm translates to a FOV of the old standby, 28-70mm. The IS is a useful feature to have too, and I can tell you that many pros wished Canon would add IS to the 24-70/2.8L!

Be aware that the 17-55 is notorious for developing problems with the IS mechanism. It is an excellent lens when it works, but realize that many people have had problems with the IS conking out in the middle of a shoot and causing ERR99's on the camera. Mine died in exactly that way, and I had to send it back to Canon for $$$ repair.

You can use the awesome Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 with the right adapter, but that's a $2000+ lens before taxes here in Canada. It has spectacular resolution in the corners of the frame, but all that would be lost on a 40D anyway. If you want ultrawide on a 40D, try one of the zoom lenses that start at 10mm.

Tokina 11-16/2.8 is an awesome UWA for crop. Cheers.

How do you compare 2 lenses that are both great quality but excell at different tasks? Enyone will have different style of shooting that will favour a specific lens or camera. Personally, I would total up my metadata to see what aperture is used the most for the type of shot you plan to use the new toy for. If you need fast or soft bacgrounds the answer may be in the numbers. If you need a lighter lens with a less extreme range ditto.

At the end of the day I have never found a lens with a red stripe on it that I can blame for missing a shot. That's like blaming a hammer for the nail going in crooked. Lol. They are both excellent choices.

I rarely use my 17-40L except for wide interior or landscape shots, but have recently started to re-use it for some of my wedding work. I generally try to avoid using ultrawide for shooting people except for specific circumstances. One thing is for sure, in dark venues the f/4 is like being blind in the viewfinder. Luckily the depth of field is fairly generous at the wide end.

I've compared the 17-40 and 16-35, the 16-35 is definitely a better lens, not just faster but better towards the edges of the glass as well and it controls aberrations better. However, considering the price difference you would really want that extra speed to justify the money. On a cropped sensor there's really not much between them, other than that stop.