Canon 16-35 f2.8L vs 17-40 f4L
Discussion
My 20mm prime just isn't wide enough for more than half-decent landscapes on the 20D, and because I intend to go to a full-frame sensor DSLR at some stage, and still use Canon film SLR's opn occasion, the digital-specific EF-S lenses are not for me.
So I am considering one of the above lenses at some stage (plus a 100-400 IS). Do any PH'ers have experience of one or the other or both? There is quite a price difference and I'm far from flush presently. One thing that puts me off the pricier 16-35 is that when I go full-frame, I tend to prefer 24mm and might as well just use my 24mm Canon prime. Or is the 16-35mm so good that it even kicks the crap out of primes for landscape work?
Both are heavy beasts, too, compared with a 24mm prime... I suppose another option is just to save my pennies to be able to flog the 20D and get a full-frame effort, whereupon the 20mm and 24mm primes should be fine for most landscape work, and the 28-135IS is a useful stand-in also. I've never been that keen on the look of ultra-wides masquerading as wide angle lenses on a 1.6x crop DSLR, except perhaps for Steve Carter's efforts on here. Maybe I just haven't seen enough shots like this using a good enough lens!
If anyone can make any sense of that, views appreciated!
So I am considering one of the above lenses at some stage (plus a 100-400 IS). Do any PH'ers have experience of one or the other or both? There is quite a price difference and I'm far from flush presently. One thing that puts me off the pricier 16-35 is that when I go full-frame, I tend to prefer 24mm and might as well just use my 24mm Canon prime. Or is the 16-35mm so good that it even kicks the crap out of primes for landscape work?
Both are heavy beasts, too, compared with a 24mm prime... I suppose another option is just to save my pennies to be able to flog the 20D and get a full-frame effort, whereupon the 20mm and 24mm primes should be fine for most landscape work, and the 28-135IS is a useful stand-in also. I've never been that keen on the look of ultra-wides masquerading as wide angle lenses on a 1.6x crop DSLR, except perhaps for Steve Carter's efforts on here. Maybe I just haven't seen enough shots like this using a good enough lens!
If anyone can make any sense of that, views appreciated!
Edited by jwyatt on Tuesday 9th January 11:35
I've been using the 17-40L for quite some time now and i love it to death. In fact that and the 100-400L IS are the two lenses i use 99% of the time. I have a got a normal usm 28-135 as an 'in the middle' lens but i very rarely use it.
I use a Canon 1D MkI and more recently a 400D though much prefer the 1D as its only got a 1.3x crop compared to 1.6x for the 400D.
I find the 17-40 very sharp and its not that heavy a lens i think. The F4 fastest aperture doesnt bother me too much tho if you secifically want F2.8 you have to go with the 16-35 which is more expensive to buy.
I'd definatly recommend the 17-40 though, cracking lens....
I use a Canon 1D MkI and more recently a 400D though much prefer the 1D as its only got a 1.3x crop compared to 1.6x for the 400D.
I find the 17-40 very sharp and its not that heavy a lens i think. The F4 fastest aperture doesnt bother me too much tho if you secifically want F2.8 you have to go with the 16-35 which is more expensive to buy.
I'd definatly recommend the 17-40 though, cracking lens....
The 17-55 is an EF-S lens and not useable on film SLR's....
That's an interesting test above, given that its the wide end I'd be interested in, the 16-35 seems not to be worth the extra. Having written the above (which was the first time it really hit me that my present lenses are fine with a full-frame DSLR!) I think there are two real options here: Get a 17-40L as a stop-gap until I get an EOS5D or equivalent full-frame sensor DSLR then sell it (because my 24mm prime will do the job, and buying at £350 in the US I'd sell it SH for what I paid new) or just do nothing, save pennies, and get a 5D or its replacement. In both cases I'd flog the 20D.
As primarily a landscape photgrapher I've always been disappointed with the viewfinder image of 1.6x crop DSLR's and the visual effect of using ultra-wides. When I use my OM1 to shoot B+W film the viewfinder image is so superior I feel I could step into the scene.
Penny saving required! Especially as I need to buy my wife a better motor first...
That's an interesting test above, given that its the wide end I'd be interested in, the 16-35 seems not to be worth the extra. Having written the above (which was the first time it really hit me that my present lenses are fine with a full-frame DSLR!) I think there are two real options here: Get a 17-40L as a stop-gap until I get an EOS5D or equivalent full-frame sensor DSLR then sell it (because my 24mm prime will do the job, and buying at £350 in the US I'd sell it SH for what I paid new) or just do nothing, save pennies, and get a 5D or its replacement. In both cases I'd flog the 20D.
As primarily a landscape photgrapher I've always been disappointed with the viewfinder image of 1.6x crop DSLR's and the visual effect of using ultra-wides. When I use my OM1 to shoot B+W film the viewfinder image is so superior I feel I could step into the scene.
Penny saving required! Especially as I need to buy my wife a better motor first...
Sorry but when your talking wide on dSLR's (croped) then thats fairly incompatable with full frame cameras.
17mm is very wide on FF but meerly wide on croped. if 20mm isnt enough 17 isnt going to be.
Get a 10-20 or 10-22 if you want realy wide, suck up the EF-S'ness and sell on if/when you move to full frame.
17mm is very wide on FF but meerly wide on croped. if 20mm isnt enough 17 isnt going to be.
Get a 10-20 or 10-22 if you want realy wide, suck up the EF-S'ness and sell on if/when you move to full frame.
I've got a 5D 
I ws thinking of getting the 17-40, but I want a wide angle lens with a wide apature. For landscapes you may find the 17-40 would suit you fine, but I want it for low light for which the extra stop makes all the difference.
Have a look at www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ and read what people who own the lens think of them.
I've sen quality shots taken with both these lenses, but less taken with the 16-35 as it cost a lot more.
I ws thinking of getting the 17-40, but I want a wide angle lens with a wide apature. For landscapes you may find the 17-40 would suit you fine, but I want it for low light for which the extra stop makes all the difference. Have a look at www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ and read what people who own the lens think of them.
I've sen quality shots taken with both these lenses, but less taken with the 16-35 as it cost a lot more.
IMHO I think you’re getting hung up on the crop issue.
As you prolly already know, the sensor on a FF is similar to a 35mm frame, whereas the CMOS sensor on the Canon kit you’re talking about is smaller in all dimensions.
This sensor size difference is offset by the difference in focal length of the lenses which are suitable for FF and CMOS sensor.
The actual image – as displayed on the sensor is no different on either FF or (smaller) CMOS sensor, due to the differences in focal length which the lens’ models are built around.
The real difference between FF & CMOS, is the data-collecting ability which each possess, and here the FF comes out ahead.
HTH
As you prolly already know, the sensor on a FF is similar to a 35mm frame, whereas the CMOS sensor on the Canon kit you’re talking about is smaller in all dimensions.
This sensor size difference is offset by the difference in focal length of the lenses which are suitable for FF and CMOS sensor.
The actual image – as displayed on the sensor is no different on either FF or (smaller) CMOS sensor, due to the differences in focal length which the lens’ models are built around.
The real difference between FF & CMOS, is the data-collecting ability which each possess, and here the FF comes out ahead.
HTH
I'm not sure I'm too hung up on the crop issue - are we confident that ultra-wide glass is actually up to the job? I got some weird effects on the 20mm prime (and let's not forget that a half-decent prime should be ahead of even an expensive zoom on image quality) wheras my 24mm and 28mm primes (Sigma, Zuiko and Canon) seem to capture detail much better. On some shots of bluebells in particular I shot loads with the 20D and 20mm that were just really weird - I was using a pole and a shutter speed way above what I shoot with Velvia, and yet there was a blurring effect in the detailed area of the shots that is just not there when I scan slides digitally. I don't know if this is the 20D itself, the lens, or what but it put me off using the thing for landscape.
Below are two shots with the 20D and Canon 20mm, then two similar ones with film SLR's and a 28mm Zuiko and 24mm Canon prime respectively. Hopefully you can see what I mean even with these highly compressed low quality and not much edited shots. Any views on this?
20D and 20mm Canon prime:
OM1 and Zuiko 28mm prime on Velvia 50 scanned in with Acer scanwit slide scanner:
Canon EOS50E and Canon 24mm prime on Velvia 50 scanned in with Acer scanwit slide scanner:
To me, good old film and a basic prime lens - even with a basic slide scanner that was £250 ages ago, looks better for landscape, the detail seems better, despite both (obviously) being a digital image
Below are two shots with the 20D and Canon 20mm, then two similar ones with film SLR's and a 28mm Zuiko and 24mm Canon prime respectively. Hopefully you can see what I mean even with these highly compressed low quality and not much edited shots. Any views on this?
20D and 20mm Canon prime:
OM1 and Zuiko 28mm prime on Velvia 50 scanned in with Acer scanwit slide scanner:
Canon EOS50E and Canon 24mm prime on Velvia 50 scanned in with Acer scanwit slide scanner:
To me, good old film and a basic prime lens - even with a basic slide scanner that was £250 ages ago, looks better for landscape, the detail seems better, despite both (obviously) being a digital image
Edited by jwyatt on Wednesday 10th January 17:22
Much more contrast,yes...but better quality? All digital images need to be properly edited to get the best from them.
I think that digital can do everything film can now...it's all down to the quality of the lens.
Martin.
PS - I have an EOS1n and a 1DmarkIIN so I speak from experience.
I think that digital can do everything film can now...it's all down to the quality of the lens.
Martin.
PS - I have an EOS1n and a 1DmarkIIN so I speak from experience.
From the photos you post (esp the forest) it is difficult to comment on the angle and field of view, because they are not taken from identical positions. That said, however, the OM1 with Zuiko 28mm prime will have a wider field because its 28mm lens equates to a 17mm focal length on a CMOS sensor.
The example picture you’ve posted more or less confirms this, with its misaligned verticals in the tree trunks; to many this would be something that should be given attention to, unless the attempt is to create a special fish-eye effect. But, I doubt that.
The real difference in the coastal shots appears to be the colour saturation, hue, and levels adjustment, which really is a straightforward exercise in post processing in digital format. That's a given, on the basis no lens filter was used on either shot.
The example picture you’ve posted more or less confirms this, with its misaligned verticals in the tree trunks; to many this would be something that should be given attention to, unless the attempt is to create a special fish-eye effect. But, I doubt that.
The real difference in the coastal shots appears to be the colour saturation, hue, and levels adjustment, which really is a straightforward exercise in post processing in digital format. That's a given, on the basis no lens filter was used on either shot.
A lot of it to do with colour - where I prefer the look of Velvia and no filter (or a gentle grey grad) to the 20D with a combined polariser/81A warm-up, which was in place for both the shots above. But there does seem to be an odd effect with the detail, you can see above that the 20D shot has just madethe bluebells little bright blue specs with green fuzz all over the place, the slide scans show more detail - this is easier to spot on the full quality images.
I don't doubt that a 1DS or whatever is great, and I love my 20D for people, action, and wildlife photgraphy, I'm just suprised more people don't comment on the failings for landscape of the CMOS sensor DSLR's. Just asa lot of people blank out the fact that a £300 prime might have better image quality than a £1500 zoom because they want expensive toys, some people would be very suprised that a film SLR purchased with prime lens for say £150 oin Ebay, and a slide scanner costing the same, can produce better landscapes than a £1000 CMOS DSLR and zoom lens kit.
I don't doubt that a 1DS or whatever is great, and I love my 20D for people, action, and wildlife photgraphy, I'm just suprised more people don't comment on the failings for landscape of the CMOS sensor DSLR's. Just asa lot of people blank out the fact that a £300 prime might have better image quality than a £1500 zoom because they want expensive toys, some people would be very suprised that a film SLR purchased with prime lens for say £150 oin Ebay, and a slide scanner costing the same, can produce better landscapes than a £1000 CMOS DSLR and zoom lens kit.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff