June 21, 2018, 10:56:08 AM

Author Topic: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8  (Read 20231 times)

pwp

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2471
Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2012, 03:06:30 AM »
This very recent thread may help you.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8879.msg160935#msg160935
It directly discusses the 17-40 vs 16-35 scenario.

-PW

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2012, 03:06:30 AM »

spinworkxroy

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2012, 04:58:07 AM »
I think the BIG question is still..how deep is your pocket?
If it's deep enough, just go for the best…the 16-35…even if you don't need the 2.8, just get it because you can..
IF your pocket is as shallow as mine, then the 16-35 isn't even a consideration.
Do you already own the 24-70 f2.8? Or do you own the 24-105 f4…
Somehow people who own the 24-70 will go for the 16-35…and vice vesa :)
You do get spoilt when you already have an existing 2.8 lens…

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2012, 06:26:57 AM »
The EF 16-35 II is not a perfect lens, but compared to the EF 17-40 buy it or wait for a EF 16-35 III.

marekjoz

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 927
    • marekjoz @flickr
Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2012, 07:30:13 AM »
The EF 16-35 II is not a perfect lens, but compared to the EF 17-40 buy it or wait for a EF 16-35 III.

I wouldn't like to be banned or excluded - luckily there are no more smites :) - but looking at those comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0 I can say that at all apertures starting from 4.0 up:
1. Below 24mm 16-35 has slightly better CA but worse resolution
2. Above 28 mm 17-40 is better in CA and resolution

They mostly differ in
A. available apertures 2.8 vs 4.0 where in 16-35 using it below f 3.2 starts to be questionable because of the IQ
B. mms: 16 vs 17 and 35 vs 40

I didn't have 16-35 II so this controversial comparison conclusion comes from observing those testing charts only. I had 17-40 and it was good but of course darker than 16-35.
flickr | youtube | 5D2, 50 F/1.4, 24-105 F/4 L IS, 300 F/4 L IS, x1.4 II

pwp

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2471
Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2012, 08:22:28 AM »
No smites for you. Facts are facts.
This echoes my own experience with both these lenses.

-PW

EOBeav

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 418
    • My Landscape Photoblog
Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2012, 10:03:44 AM »
They both let in the same amount of light. The difference is that the 16-35 let's you go all the way out to f/2.8. If you're shooting landscapes (an ideal situation for the 17-40), you're rarely going to want that kind of DOF.
In landscape photography, when you shoot is more important than where.

Gear: Canon 5DmkII, 17-40mm f/4 L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/4.

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4544
Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2012, 02:22:51 AM »
The 16-35 f2.8L II is also very snappy in the low light AF performance on the 5d mk3 its superb in low light wide open
APS-H Fanboy

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2012, 02:22:51 AM »