Lens Advice - Canon L Glass

[londonagent]

Currently thinking about buying my first L lens. Most of my photography is landscape, particularly night-time.
The ones I am thinking about are:

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM or the Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 L USM. The reviews for both are good, but there is a price differential of £600 between the two.

Anybody have experience of either lens, is the 16-35 £600 better than the 17-40? Would the 17 -40 also work as a good walkabout lens?

I've also been thinking if I went for the 17-40 then I could afford to changing my Sigma 10-20mm for the Canon 10-22 (I would have to sell the Sigma), has anyone done this and did you find the Canon any better than the Sigma (which I really like and is rarely off the camera).

Looking forward to your opinions.

[350Wedge]

I've been using a 17-40 for the last 7 years or so. Wouldnt be without it!!

Ok, so its only got an F4 max aperture but most of the time I dont need to go down that low. I did think about going the 16-35 route but couldnt justify the extra cost.

A simple way of justifying the extra cost would be asking yourself whether you intend to do a lot of shooting in low light?? If not then I'd suggest going the 17-40 route.

I use it as a walkabout lens on a 1D which generally I find fine. Sometimes need a bit extra but then I always have another lens or two with me.

Just to whet your appetite a bit here is a 17-40L pic, shot at the 17mm end. This was fairly recent at the American Air Day at Duxford.

[Ammo 7]

Both these lenses are probably sharpest at between f5.6 and f8, which is what I tend to shoot at if I can. I opted to buy the 17-40 f4 as it is lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 16-35 f2.8. When you shoot at these apertures I doubt you will be able to see the difference in quality.

If you have some time on your hands the link has a website where you can compare Canon lenses at different focal lengths and apertures so you can make up your own mind if the 16-35 is worth the extra 600 quid. Scroll the mouse across the graph to see the difference. Hope this helps.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-122...

[dibbly dobbler]

londonagent said:

I've also been thinking if I went for the 17-40 then I could afford to changing my Sigma 10-20mm for the Canon 10-22 (I would have to sell the Sigma), has anyone done this and did you find the Canon any better than the Sigma (which I really like and is rarely off the camera).

Looking forward to your opinions.

I did this recently (ie 10-20 to 10-22) and honestly I wouldn't bother - I've not noticed any great improvement in my landscape pics and indeed have had some of the dreaded purple fringing with the 10-22 which was not evident with the 10-20 (although this may just be done to a lack of technique of course and I never had the chance to compare the two side by side).

If you do decide you want to do it give me a shout as I would happily swap back!

[londonagent]

Thanks 350W for the reply. Have been thinking that on balance I don't need the the extra couple of stops that the 16-35 would give, so have bitten the bullet and ordered one.

So that just leaves the other question, do I upgrade the Sigma 10-20 for the Canon 10-22?

[Zod]

I own the 16-35, having previously owned the 17-40 (stolen along with my camera and several other lenses). I was pretty happy with the 17-40, but the 16-35 is in a different league. The extra stops make it work well indoors too.

I've just indulged in something even wider - the 8-15mm fisheye. Lots of playing with this lens to be done this weekend.

[londonagent]

dibbly dobbler said:

I did this recently (ie 10-20 to 10-22) and honestly I wouldn't bother - I've not noticed any great improvement in my landscape pics and indeed have had some of the dreaded purple fringing with the 10-22 which was not evident with the 10-20 (although this may just be done to a lack of technique of course and I never had the chance to compare the two side by side).

If you do decide you want to do it give me a shout as I would happily swap back!

Think i'll stick then, as my 10-20 gives me good results. Maybe stick the money into a new prime - 85mm?

[350Wedge]

londonagent said:

Think i'll stick then, as my 10-20 gives me good results. Maybe stick the money into a new prime - 85mm?

I have one of those too 85mm F1.2L II

Incredible lens, though I may be selling it soon because I've just got hold of a 35mm F1.4L which I'm finding to be more useful with the subjects I take.

[RobDickinson]

Re 17-49L or 16-35L.

Honestly if your shooting a crop body buy the 17-55f2.8IS

Its as sharp, f2.8, has more range, and has IS.

If your on full frame then the 17-40L , for landscapes, is all you need. Remember your tripod. Remember f2.8 isnt a typical landscape aperture so you will be stopping down anyhow.


BTW I'm 98% certain canon will announce a 16-40f4 L IS in the next few months.

Also the 10-22 canon is every bit as good as the 17-40L (crop vs ff).

[Bacardi]

Rob is right. Don't waste your money on L lenses for crop cameras, you're paying for glass designed to perform well on full frame cameras, round the edges. worry about that if you upgrade to FF, but that's another kettle of fish....

For those with full frame, the 17-40 is great value, performs better than the 16-35 mkI, which is why I bought one at the time. The 17-40 does exhibit chromatic aberation at the edges with contrasty subjects, but easy to dial out in a RAW processor, again, wouldn't be an issue on crop sensor cameras.The 16-35mkII is much better than the mkI, but I don't think the difference between that and the 17-40 is that great. Whether the extra 1mm view or larger aperture is worth it, is for the purchaser to decide. And just to be anal for anyone who peers into the corners of pics shot wide open, I can report that a Nikkor 14-24, which apart from size, weight and not easy to mount filters, is better quality than both of the above.

Never owned a crop camera (apart from a 1DmkIII, but that's only 1.3X, so still needs proper lenses), so have no opinion or experience of crop lenses.

Cheers