November 27, 2014, 05:06:34 AM

Author Topic: which one  (Read 5372 times)

scotty512

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
which one
« on: January 08, 2013, 07:31:24 AM »
Hi All

I have the 5DMk3 / and various lenses

having come from a 40D with a EFS 10-22 lens I want to get another wide, the lowest I have is the 24-105, so should it be the

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens
or
Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 L USM Lens

ta
scott
5D MkIII, 40D, 50 F1.4 100-400 L, 70-200 f2.8 L II, 24-105 f4 L, 2x converter, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-85

canon rumors FORUM

which one
« on: January 08, 2013, 07:31:24 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14971
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2013, 08:00:19 AM »
If you will shoot mainly at narrow apertures, get the 17 – 40. It's less expensive, similar in IQ at narrow apertures, and takes the same size filters as your 24 – 105.  If you need to shoot handheld in low light, and thus wide open, the 16 – 35 is a better choice.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

yablonsky

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2013, 08:03:20 AM »
get the Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 L USM Lens. It is a great lens!
5D2, 17-40 4L, 24-70 2.8L II, 70-200 4L IS,  300 4L IS

Haydn1971

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2013, 12:46:32 PM »
I bought the 16-35 over the 17-40 on the basis of having buyers remorse had I bought the 17-40 :-/

I'm not looking forward to the choice between the 24-105 and 24-70 f2.8 as I suspect I'll end up with both, but current plan is to buy what I really want when I can afford it, rather than work up with intermediate models.  Currently working on prioritising over the next few years a 8-15 & 24-70 f2.8 to add to my 16-35 & 135, then hopefully add a 24/35 f1.4 and a 100-400 further down the line
Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M ,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 22mm f2.0, Lensbaby, EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0 lens

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: which one
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2013, 01:30:56 PM »
I have the 17-40 and it's a very good lens overall... No regrets... Especially with the 5d3, you dont have to fret raising ISO if you need that speed...  Granted, for how i shoot, for architecture, aviation, landscape, anywhere when I'd be needing the UW for my FF, I would use a tripod or monopod, I have rarely been in situations where I needed the 2.8.  Dont sweat the small stuff unless you plan on handholding this lens/camera in dark warehouses day in and day out. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

ChilledXpress

  • Guest
Re: which one
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2013, 01:32:44 PM »
I have both but for the most part I use the wide angles for landscapes on a tripod, with narrow apertures... so usually at f/8 or higher. In this range or higher there is very little difference between the 16-35 or the 17-40. In these circumstances my filters are also easily swapped between my other lenses @77mm.

Still have both but 99% of the time the 17-40 is carried because it's less weight, filter friendly with the rest of the bag and pretty good in the IQ department. If I had to do again... I'd save the money and buy the 17-40. I use other faster glass for low light work if that's needed.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 01:34:31 PM by ChilledXpress »

sambafan

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2013, 02:20:01 PM »
Unless you really need the zoom, can I suggest the 28 f/1.8 ? Great lens, versatile due to the extra stops, and you can always back up a few steps. To me, the more light the better. Don't worry about the lack of a red ring!
If you're dead set on ultrawide, go 16-35. I've rented and loved it. Worth the added cost IMO.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: which one
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2013, 02:20:01 PM »

AudioGlenn

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2013, 02:35:50 PM »
consider the 8-15 fisheye!

I went through the same decision last month and sold my 10-22.  I liked it for the distortion but couldn't use it on my 5d mk3.  24mm on FF is wide enough for my uses.  For the ULTRA wide look, I really like the 8-15 at 14mm or 15mm.   if you need to "de-fish" it, it's pretty easy to do in Lightroom.  Also, it's in between the price for the 17-40 and 16-35!

Just a thought
5D mkIII  |  40 f/2.8 | 8-15 f/4L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 600ex-rt | 430 ex ii | EOS M+22mm f/2 | EF to EF-M adapter

Ew

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2013, 04:38:24 PM »
Don't mean to hijack this thread...

I love the 17-40 on 5d3, and strongly recommebd it. I've tried the 16-35, but the benefit was negligible for me.

I have been searchin for a 15mm 2.8 fish for over 6 months though, and have started to think about the 8-15  though.
In the mean time cropping away at the Samyang 8mm T3.8 due to its massive vignette on ff.

5D3 | 600D | EOSm | Samyang 8mm 3.8T | Samyang 14 2.8 | 17-40 | 28 1.8 | Sig 35 1.4 | 40 | 50 1.4 | 100 2.0 | 135 L | 70-200 4L IS + x1.4mk2 | Nippon Kogaku 50 1.4 (1965) | Nikkor 43-86 (mid 1970s) | M: 22

ChilledXpress

  • Guest
Re: which one
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2013, 07:04:41 PM »
Don't mean to hijack this thread...

I love the 17-40 on 5d3, and strongly recommebd it. I've tried the 16-35, but the benefit was negligible for me.

I have been searchin for a 15mm 2.8 fish for over 6 months though, and have started to think about the 8-15  though.
In the mean time cropping away at the Samyang 8mm T3.8 due to its massive vignette on ff.


If you're on a FF...try Sigma's 15 mm Rectalinear Fisheye for FF (it also works on crops). At f/2.8 it sucks in light, is cheap, great close MFD and super sharp! I tested out both the 8-15 and this Sigma... hands down the Sigma won every time. I love it!!!

On a 5D3...

MotoGP 2012 Mazda Raceway, Laguna Seca - Helicopter Ride by David KM, on Flickr

Monterey Bay Aquarium by David KM, on Flickr
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 08:08:41 PM by ChilledXpress »

AudioGlenn

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2013, 08:02:38 PM »
@AudioGlenn  ;)

This is why I like this forum, glad you are liking the 8-15.

=)  Yes, I too am loving this forum!  I've grown a lot in the last year just reading everyone's opinion's and thoughts. 

Here's a favorite of mine of my nieces at my cousin's wedding last week using the 8-15mm.
5D mkIII  |  40 f/2.8 | 8-15 f/4L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 600ex-rt | 430 ex ii | EOS M+22mm f/2 | EF to EF-M adapter

crasher8

  • Guest
Neither?
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2013, 08:18:16 PM »
I'm hunting for an UWA zoom after owning the 17-40 twice, once on a crop and it was the wrong choice and once on the 5D3 and had a bad copy. I am really interested in the Tokina 16-28 especially with Roger Cicata's review. I'm just bummed it has no filter threads as I love using a B+W circular Pol on my 24-105. No I'm not ready to invest in drop in filters.
Check out the Tokina. Reviewers match it to the 16-35 on the wide end in the center and has sharper corners than both Canon's.

JPAZ

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • If only I knew what I was doing.....
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2013, 08:20:30 PM »
Went with the 17-40 because it is a bit smaller and lighter and is half the price.  Did not feel the f2.8 was a big deal for me given the reasonable quality at high iso on the 5diii.  I really liked my 10-22 on  crop and that only opened to 3.5.   Then, was lucky enough to find a good copy used and saved some more. 

Of course, that gave me an excuse to get the 14mm which is just fun!

 :)
5d Mkiii; Eos-M; too many lenses; 430 EXii and a whole lot of stuff

canon rumors FORUM

Re: which one
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2013, 08:20:30 PM »

scotty512

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2013, 07:23:38 AM »
Totally love this forum too, really enjoy reading the threads

thanks everyone for all the feedback, I dont think the fisheye is what I am looking for at present, but it will be one on the list for sure, after the 400mm 2.8   ;)

still not sure, but I really like the 2.8 option so I reckon that am leaning towards the 16-35

time to ebay the 10-22 I think, couple that with the bonus from work should get it  ;D
5D MkIII, 40D, 50 F1.4 100-400 L, 70-200 f2.8 L II, 24-105 f4 L, 2x converter, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-85

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14971
    • View Profile
Re: which one
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2013, 07:57:56 AM »
still not sure, but I really like the 2.8 option so I reckon that am leaning towards the 16-35

I do some handheld night walkaround shooting, and the f/2.8 of the 16-35 II does come in handy.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: which one
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2013, 07:57:56 AM »