17-40mm or 16-35mm Lens? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lubeboy · 12-30-2007, 12:28 PM

I'm having a hard time deciding which lens to get. I've been doing my research and have been reading conflicting views. The 17-40mm goes for around 600 while the 16-35mm is twice as much. Is the 16-35mm worth it for the extra stop and slightly faster lens or will I be fine with the 17-40mm?

Baraka_Guru · 12-30-2007, 01:00 PM

What are you planning to shoot with it?

Lubeboy · 12-30-2007, 01:08 PM

Mostly event shooting and landscapes. I'm kind of leaning towards the 17-40mm to save money. I figured I would compensate for the extra stop with my sigma 500 DG Super and upping the ISO. I dunno.

fnaqzna · 12-30-2007, 04:54 PM

A friend of mine gave me some advice on lenses and in my experience he was right.

Buy the best glass you can afford.

paddyjoe · 12-31-2007, 06:25 AM

sandman speaks the truth..

plus..

event photography, especially indoors, usually requires all the speed you can muster. increasing the ISO works to an extent, but watch out for too much noise.

allaboutmusic · 12-31-2007, 06:31 AM

What they said. Which two lenses are you comparing? Canon Ls?

Lubeboy · 12-31-2007, 07:13 AM

^ yeah Canon Ls. Wow people on different forums giving me conflicting advice. I can't decide!

Baraka_Guru · 12-31-2007, 07:48 AM

Lay out all the advice you've received so we can evaluate it.

allaboutmusic · 12-31-2007, 08:31 AM

Have you checked out the lens reviews on Fred Miranda?

Here is an excerpt from a 16-35 review:

Quote:

After some hours with testing, comparing to my sharp and versatile 17-40 f/4.0
I conclude:

• Sharper than 17-40 wide open at f/2.8 – all focal lengths.
• Slightly sharper also above f.8.0 at all focal lengths
• Very sharp in center even wide open
• Slightly soft in some corners (upper left) wide open at f.2.8. In average better corner sharpness wide open than 17-40 at f 4.0.
• Very little vignetting
• No flare problems
• Same “feel” as the 17-40 – but slightly larger/heavier - very solid
• Weather/dust sealing – and I need it for the Nordic weather
• Slightly more crispy in the colors and better contrast than the 17-40.
• A little bit more WOW factor than the very good 17-40.

The intension of buying the 16-35 f/2.8 II was not to replace my very useful 17-40. I will still use it for landscape shooting and lighter hiking. However I simply need a faster wide lens for some kind of shooting (low light). I also use the 10-22 EFS. The excellent EFS 17-55 was not a good alternative for me. I’m shooting mostly outdoors and the lack of dust/weather sealing was not appealing to me. Either was the flare or vignetting performance of the 17-55 IS. I do not need IS for short focal lengths. And … I guess I will supplement with a FF one day. Happy shooting!

Link: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1

At the end of the day you simply have to decide what you are going to be using it for. I'm not a pro, but when I shoot indoor events, I take along two primes and tend to use the 28mm/1.8 most of the time.

Lubeboy · 12-31-2007, 10:47 AM

Here are my current resources on the subject:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=22925873

The 17-40mm just seems like a better for bang for the buck.

fnaqzna · 12-31-2007, 03:54 PM

Ken Rockwell likes the 17-40mm.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-40mm.htm

He says, "The 17-40mm f/4 L is a better, lighter and newer lens than the fatter and more expensive 16-35mm."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm.htm

In my experience, Ken Rockwell is a knowledgeable, trustworthy reviewer.

JumpinJesus · 12-31-2007, 05:01 PM

I struggled and struggled when I got my 70-200. I couldn't decide if I should spend the money on the f/2.8 or save $1,000 and go with the f/4. I went with saving money. I haven't been disappointed in that decision once.

Sure, faster is always better, but when you're dealing with "L" lenses, you're already dealing with the best, and depending on the body, if you pushed the ISO to 200 or 400, there is so little noise at either that using the f/4 probably wouldn't make a difference.

Now, I also agree with fnaqzna that you should always get the best you can afford, but I don't think for a second you'll be disappointed in the 17-40.

Lubeboy · 12-31-2007, 05:07 PM

Great thanks guys. I just ordered a 40D to replace my Rebel XT. Should be a good combo.

forseti-6 · 01-01-2008, 11:15 PM

Hope I didn't jump in on this thread too soon.

You said you shoot landscape and event photography. In that case, I don't believe just one or the other will satisfy your need. As previously mentioned, you will need a lot of light to shoot events as much will probably be done indoors. As for the landscape shooting, you'll many times be stopping down to f/8 or f/11, so when it comes to that, you won't need the extra stop.

My suggestion to you, is buy the 17-40 for your landscape and buy a fast prime for your events (i.e. a 50 f/1.4 or even a 50 f/1.8).

I shoot indoor photography a lot and sometimes my Leica 50 f/1 isn't enough, so you WILL crave as much light as possible for indoors, and a zoom lens just won't be able to provide that.

Oh yes, I meant to say this as well, but some how it escaped my mind...
Since you will be shooting with a 40D, to really take advantage of the wide angle to do your landscape, strongly consider the 10-22 EFS. While I have not shot the 10-22 myself, I have certainly read great reviews about it, and some going as far as saying it's Canon's best wide angle lens. Keep in mind, shooting a 17-40 on a 40D is essentially yielding only 27-64 mm due to the 1.6x crop factor of the smaller sensor, where as the 10-22 will be 16-35.

zipper · 01-03-2008, 09:48 AM

I own the 17-40...it is legendary when it comes to landscapes! As long as I don't shoot wide open (4.0) it is very sharp! You can see LOTS of samples here: http://zhphotography.zenfolio.com/

Very sharp in low light...this is F4.5 shutter speed of 1/50

This is

F 5.0 and sharp throughout!

tricks · 01-06-2008, 12:59 AM

Consider buying used and save some $?

http://www.keh.com/onlinestore/home.aspx has come reccomended on a camera forum for good stuff.

12-30-2007, 12:28 PM	#1 (permalink)
Lubeboy Crazy	17-40mm or 16-35mm Lens? I'm having a hard time deciding which lens to get. I've been doing my research and have been reading conflicting views. The 17-40mm goes for around 600 while the 16-35mm is twice as much. Is the 16-35mm worth it for the extra stop and slightly faster lens or will I be fine with the 17-40mm?

12-30-2007, 01:00 PM	#2 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	What are you planning to shoot with it? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-30-2007, 01:08 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lubeboy Crazy	Mostly event shooting and landscapes. I'm kind of leaning towards the 17-40mm to save money. I figured I would compensate for the extra stop with my sigma 500 DG Super and upping the ISO. I dunno. Last edited by Lubeboy; 12-30-2007 at 01:12 PM..

12-31-2007, 07:48 AM	#8 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Lay out all the advice you've received so we can evaluate it. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-31-2007, 10:47 AM	#10 (permalink)
Lubeboy Crazy	Here are my current resources on the subject: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=22925873 The 17-40mm just seems like a better for bang for the buck. Last edited by Lubeboy; 12-31-2007 at 11:05 AM..

12-30-2007, 04:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
fnaqzna Meat Popsicle Location: Left Coast	A friend of mine gave me some advice on lenses and in my experience he was right. Buy the best glass you can afford.

12-31-2007, 06:25 AM	#5 (permalink)
paddyjoe through charlatans phone Location: Northcoast	sandman speaks the truth.. plus.. event photography, especially indoors, usually requires all the speed you can muster. increasing the ISO works to an extent, but watch out for too much noise.

12-31-2007, 06:31 AM	#6 (permalink)
allaboutmusic Aurally Fixated	What they said. Which two lenses are you comparing? Canon Ls?

12-31-2007, 07:13 AM	#7 (permalink)
Lubeboy Crazy	^ yeah Canon Ls. Wow people on different forums giving me conflicting advice. I can't decide!

12-31-2007, 03:54 PM	#11 (permalink)
fnaqzna Meat Popsicle Location: Left Coast	Ken Rockwell likes the 17-40mm. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-40mm.htm He says, "The 17-40mm f/4 L is a better, lighter and newer lens than the fatter and more expensive 16-35mm." http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm.htm In my experience, Ken Rockwell is a knowledgeable, trustworthy reviewer.

12-31-2007, 05:01 PM	#12 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	I struggled and struggled when I got my 70-200. I couldn't decide if I should spend the money on the f/2.8 or save $1,000 and go with the f/4. I went with saving money. I haven't been disappointed in that decision once. Sure, faster is always better, but when you're dealing with "L" lenses, you're already dealing with the best, and depending on the body, if you pushed the ISO to 200 or 400, there is so little noise at either that using the f/4 probably wouldn't make a difference. Now, I also agree with fnaqzna that you should always get the best you can afford, but I don't think for a second you'll be disappointed in the 17-40. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

12-31-2007, 05:07 PM	#13 (permalink)
Lubeboy Crazy	Great thanks guys. I just ordered a 40D to replace my Rebel XT. Should be a good combo. Last edited by Lubeboy; 12-31-2007 at 05:15 PM..

01-01-2008, 11:15 PM	#14 (permalink)
forseti-6 Existentialist Location: New York City	Hope I didn't jump in on this thread too soon. You said you shoot landscape and event photography. In that case, I don't believe just one or the other will satisfy your need. As previously mentioned, you will need a lot of light to shoot events as much will probably be done indoors. As for the landscape shooting, you'll many times be stopping down to f/8 or f/11, so when it comes to that, you won't need the extra stop. My suggestion to you, is buy the 17-40 for your landscape and buy a fast prime for your events (i.e. a 50 f/1.4 or even a 50 f/1.8). I shoot indoor photography a lot and sometimes my Leica 50 f/1 isn't enough, so you WILL crave as much light as possible for indoors, and a zoom lens just won't be able to provide that. Oh yes, I meant to say this as well, but some how it escaped my mind... Since you will be shooting with a 40D, to really take advantage of the wide angle to do your landscape, strongly consider the 10-22 EFS. While I have not shot the 10-22 myself, I have certainly read great reviews about it, and some going as far as saying it's Canon's best wide angle lens. Keep in mind, shooting a 17-40 on a 40D is essentially yielding only 27-64 mm due to the 1.6x crop factor of the smaller sensor, where as the 10-22 will be 16-35. __________________ "Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss Last edited by forseti-6; 01-01-2008 at 11:32 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-03-2008, 09:48 AM	#15 (permalink)
zipper Crazy Location: Georgia, USA	I own the 17-40...it is legendary when it comes to landscapes! As long as I don't shoot wide open (4.0) it is very sharp! You can see LOTS of samples here: http://zhphotography.zenfolio.com/ Very sharp in low light...this is F4.5 shutter speed of 1/50 This is F 5.0 and sharp throughout! __________________ "If you wait 'til the last minute, it will only take you a minute!" Visit my home page http://zhphotography.zenfolio.com/ Last edited by zipper; 01-03-2008 at 12:58 PM..

01-06-2008, 12:59 AM	#16 (permalink)
tricks Crazy	Consider buying used and save some $? http://www.keh.com/onlinestore/home.aspx has come reccomended on a camera forum for good stuff. __________________ People Are Stupid. People can be made to believe any lie, either because they want it to be true or because they fear that it is.