16-35 L f 2.8 and 24 L f1.4

Hi,

need your help. I'm thinking about replacing my 17-40 L and the 2

captioned lenses may be a possible substitute for it.

I have 2 question:

- DoF: will those wide angles let me "artistically" create the

composition of the frames playing with the lens aperture? or the DoF

of such wide angles will basically vanificate such possibility?

- could you indicate a fair review of these lenses (already read

luminous landscape and photozone), cause it seems to me (relying on

the above reviews) that the 24 prime is not better than the 16-35.

 

i manly shoot film and my favourite use of the camera is street

photography.

 

thx

The 16-35@16mm has enormous depth of field.

 

You'll be limiting yourself if you're after thin depth of field. Try a 35/1.4 or 85/1.2 for that. :)

If I were you, I would get either the 24L or the 35L for low light street and, if you can swing it, the 17-40.

 

I have both of these primes and the 16-35. The primes are much sharper in my opinion. Even though the 16-35 is an F/2.8, I still go for the primes when I need a fast lens.

 

From what I gather the 17-40 is every bit as sharp as the 16-35, so I would simply replace your lens--in that category if you need a zoom.

 

Robin

>>the 24 prime is not better than the 16-35.<<

 

Only YOU will know what's better for YOUR needs.

 

Optically they are all excellent lenses thus, it's only a matter for you to decided which focal lenght you want. For street photography DOF doesn't need to be as shallow as in portraits. Indeed there are times you will need a greater DOF for a multitude of reasons.

 

But, again it's all up to YOU.

FWIW, Check out the Olympus 21mm/f2 (via an Olympus-EOS adapter). I think it may be the only lens that could do ultra wide and f2.0 (shadow DOF) at the same time, if that is what you looking after. It is very small for street too.<div></div>

Wide angle lenses and more specifically those wider than 20mm naturally have huge depth of field. For architcture and landscape I shoot at f16-f22 as often as possible to get everything from inches in front of my face to infinity in sharp focus. Obviously this is opposite to what you are looking for and if you want any hope of isolating your subject from the background you are going to need an aperture of 1.2 or 1.4. The 24 may still have too much natural depth of field and as stated by a previous poster you may need a 35, 50, or 85mm lens to get the narrow depth of field you are looking for.

 

 

I think you are going to have to try some lenses in a retail store to determine which ones meet your requirements.

 

 

There is also a depth of field calculator referred to in many threads in the last few weeks. If I find it I will post it here.

 

 

As noted above be careful when reading reviews as most will likely be talking about sharpness, contrast, and autofocus speed. You are more concerned with depth of field and bokeh. Good luck.

Here is the link I spoke of:

 

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

"I think it may be the only lens that could do ultra wide and f2.0 (shadow DOF) at the same time"

 

Sigma 20mm f1.8, available in EF autofocus/autoaperture mount. Though the bokeh at wide apertures is truly bizarre

I have the Sigma 20mm f1.8. It is very wide on my 20D, the aperture of f1.8 lets you play around with depth of field but only if your subject is closer than about 6' from the camera.

 

It is also a 'macro' lens, so you can use it for really wild wide-macro shots with very narrow DOF if wide open.

There is a current thread at the FM forum by a member who is loving the output from his

24L. He posted a nice example. Check it out, it might be what you are looking to accomplish

in your work.

Actually you can't use that much the 1.4 aperture of the 24mm lens - it's terrible especially if you like neat photos.

 

 

<p> <p>

___________________________________<br>

<a href="http://www.mondiani.com">Mondiani party event photographer</a>