17-40 or 16-35 wide angle ?

[Busa_Rush]

Having bought a full frame body my choice is a bit more limited. I really don't want to spend the money on the 16-35, I'm sure it's a fantastic lens but I suspect for what I do, the 17-40 would be fine. As far as I can see the main difference will be f2.8 -v- f4 and I usually stop down for landscape anyway.

Any reason to get the 16-35 other than a very slight (marginal ?) optional benefit and better low light performance ?

[mattdaniels]

Nikon D700 by any chance?

best thing to do is take it in to your local camera shoppe and have a go with both and see which you prefer

[SamHH]

I'm not sure what you mean by "optional benefit", but yes, the 16-35 Mk II is supposed to be better quality. I don't think anyone can say whether it's worth the extra money for you though. If it were me I'd buy the cheaper lens and see if it is good enough for my purposes.

[Busa_Rush]

mattdaniels said:

Nikon D700 by any chance?

best thing to do is take it in to your local camera shoppe and have a go with both and see which you prefer

It's a Canon 5dii. I know the 16-35 is slightly bigger and heavier bit the reviews suggest they are similar.

[Busa_Rush]

SamHH said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "optional benefit", but yes, the 16-35 Mk II is supposed to be better quality. I don't think anyone can say whether it's worth the extra money for you though. If it were me I'd buy the cheaper lens and see if it is good enough for my purposes.

Sorry, should say optical benefit - the reviews I've read suggest the 16-35 is slightly sharper wide open and probably slightly better at all focal lengths. Just wondering if this benefit is something I'll see in use or a marginal benefit that you'll need a chart and specific lab tests to identify.

[RobDickinson]

If your not shooting at f2.8 then get the 17-40L, its a fair ol nobrainer IMO.

17-40 is as good as the 16-35 as a UWA on FF for landscapes.

16-35II is more optomised for wide open shooting or stuff in the center, even stopped down its not super sharp in the corners, 17-40 is just as good or better for that.

If you want better you have to go for a prime (17tse, 21cz etc)

[bramley]

I borrowed a mates 16-35 (MkI) for a wedding recently and it was the biggest pile of st I've ever used. In fact, it ruined a whole load of shots.

I gather the MKII is better, but the 17-40 is a peach of a lens anyway, so I'm sticking with that.

[Gizmo!]

You don't need an ultra fast lens for wide angle; the extra field on view helps it collect more light (IYSWIM). f4 is more than enough, I can use my 12-24 f4 (DX) handheld at night.

[RobDickinson]

Gizmo! said:

You don't need an ultra fast lens for wide angle; the extra field on view helps it collect more light (IYSWIM). f4 is more than enough, I can use my 12-24 f4 (DX) handheld at night.

With the exception of when things are moving.

Shooting say an indoor wedding dance shot (with or without flash) etc or prehaps close up sport or something.

I personaly have no use for a fast UWA, some people do tho.

[Gizmo!]

RobDickinson said:

Gizmo! said:

You don't need an ultra fast lens for wide angle; the extra field on view helps it collect more light (IYSWIM). f4 is more than enough, I can use my 12-24 f4 (DX) handheld at night.

With the exception of when things are moving.

Shooting say an indoor wedding dance shot (with or without flash) etc or prehaps close up sport or something.

I personaly have no use for a fast UWA, some people do tho.

I take your point, although I'm not sure what sort of sport a) takes place at night and b) involves high speed close up (something like Le Mans you're a good distance from the action). Greyhound racing is floodlit...

You can still do stuff like this anyway

[Zod]

I had the 17-40 f4L and it was stolen (along with lots of other kit). I replaced it with the 16-35 MkII and I'm very happy with the replacement. It's the low light ability that makes the difference. I've used it for indoor shots where the 17-40 would have struggled. I've also used the extra speed to freeze birds and trees in wind.

[Busa_Rush]

Thanks, is there a cheaper lens, Sigma perhaps, which comes close to the performance of the 16-35 or 17-40 ?

[RobDickinson]

Busa_Rush said:

Thanks, is there a cheaper lens, Sigma perhaps, which comes close to the performance of the 16-35 or 17-40 ?

Theres a new Tokina 16-28f2.8 which doesnt look too bad.

http://www.adorama.com/TN1628NKAF.html

[Ammo 7]

I have the 17-40. It is lighter to carry around and cheaper to buy than the 16-35. I shoot between f5.6 and f11 most of the time so f.2.8 isn't that important to me.

You can compare the two lenses at different focal lengths and apertures here:

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

Edited by Ammo 7 on Wednesday 20th October 10:47

[Busa_Rush]

Thanks, I think a new 17-40 is going to be best for me. MPB have a couple of 16-35s in stock at £650 but given the 17-40 is smaller and lighter, that's more of a benefit to me than the f2.8, given what I'll be doing with it.

[Zod]

Busa_Rush said:

mattdaniels said:

Nikon D700 by any chance?

best thing to do is take it in to your local camera shoppe and have a go with both and see which you prefer

It's a Canon 5dii. I know the 16-35 is slightly bigger and heavier bit the reviews suggest they are similar.

The size difference is negligible.

ETA: they are both similar in size to the 24-105mm, except that they don't change length as they zoom.

Edited by Zod on Wednesday 20th October 14:29