Why choose a 16-35 F2.8L Vs. a 17-40 F4L ?

[aden_iannacolazzi]

Hello,

 

I am a working professional gradually switching over to digital. I have both a Pentax 67II and a Canon

1DS MKII. I am looking for the best quality wide angle zoom for the 1DS MKII. I am torn when it comes to

the two lenses mentioned above. I love to do landscapes, but I am taking this equipment to Africa and

would like to do some photojournalistic work. I often travel to poverty stricken areas where walking

around with the camera is just not smart. I like to be able to just whip the camera out of the bag and

shoot...quickly. On this trip I'll probably head into the Congo, and possibly Chad to document poverty/

internal strife. I am thinking the faster zoom may be the way to go, regardless of cost. <p>

 

What are most professional photojournalists using in this focal range? I am not using primes in this focal

range as I already have the 50mm 1.2L and the 85mm 1.2L, PLUS a Pentax 67II and 2 lenses.

 

Does anyone have any image samples from their 16-35mm? I am leaning towards this lens, due to the

extra speed. Thanks for your input...

 

Aden

[bdp]

I would go with the 16-35 for the low light aspect alone. You may be shooting at dusk/night and need that extra little ummph the 2.8 gives you. Since you have a 50, it will get you that extra bit you miss from 35-40.

 

Bob

[images_in_light_north_west]

Try this comparison of the 2

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

[john_baker4]

The other aspect is that occasionally you may want to isolate your subject and the 2.8 will give you a narrower depth of field, part of the problem of the 17-40L is at f4 you tend to get everything in focus if you need it or not. As a 1D Mark II user I sold my 16-35 and bought a 12-24 Sigma? So cannot really help, I still use my 17-40 which is a cracker - Good review over at Luminous Landscape - http://tinyurl.com/s7su

[christopher hartt dallas]

Both are great lenses. Something to remember though - you can't use a filter on a 16 for a full frame camera. The Heliopan 77mm thin will allow you to use a 17mm. Of course, if you believe that lens vignette is "art" then there isn't any problem. I have both lenses but don't feel good about taking the filter off the 16mm - so I always crop out vignette shadows...makes me wonder why I just don't use the 17-40.

[peter_white2]

As usual, Reichmann shows that he doesn't know his rear end from his elbow. In this "comparison", he makes two images with the sun behind a high voltage line tower. He makes a shot using the 17-40, then changes lenses and makes a shot with the 16-35. He even exclaims that he didn't move the camera, and even has the audacity to write, "(Naturally neither the tripod nor camera were moved while changing lenses, though I know someone on one of the discussion boards will assume that they were)." Yeah, those terrible people on the discussion boards are at it again! ;-)

 

This is beyond belief! Reichmann actually wants you to believe that while he didn't move the camera, the relative positions of camera, tower, and light source (you know, that big bright thing in the sky) haven't changed. It's as though he thinks his readers haven't graduated from third grade and aren't aware of the earth's rotation.

 

So based on these two images, we're supposed to believe that one of these lenses has worse flare control than the other. I haven't a clue whether one is better than the other since I only have the 16-35, but this "comparison" gives me no useful data with which to reach a conclusion, though Reichmann must think it does, else why publish the "comparison".

 

This guy is lame, and is best ignored. I'd hate to think of how many people, having heard that the mighty Reichmann has pronounced the 16-35 flare prone, have not bought the faster lens that they wanted but instead bought the slower lens on the mistaken belief that it produced better images in backlit situations.

[andrew robertson]

Reichmann doesn't review gear. He interprets it.

[aden_iannacolazzi]

"you can't use a filter on a 16 for a full frame camera"

 

Can you explain this. I had planned on using Singh-Ray or Lee ND Grads in a traditional

Cokin P style holder. Will I be able to do this?

 

 

Aden

[fourfa]

I have the 17-40, but for professional photojournalism I'd pick the 16-35 in a heartbeat for the speed, unless you had some real particular reason not to.

[jay a. frew]

Hello Aden:

 

"I often travel to poverty stricken areas where walking around with the camera is just not smart. I like to be able to just whip the camera out of the bag and shoot...quickly."

 

I would not choose a 1Ds MkII with either of these lenses if I was worried about my safety/security and the ability to remain inconspicuous in the environment that you describe. This kit is going to get you some attention for sure!

 

Cheers! Jay

[andrew robertson]

Hire a guard with an AK47 from the local police garrison. You can probably do it for $50

per day.

[dogbert]

"you can't use a filter on a 16 for a full frame camera"

 

As far as I know this is wrong. As I undertsand it, you can use a filter on the 16-35 on FF and it need not be a thin one.

[yakim_peled1]

I was thinking the same. Should I get the 17-40 or the 16-35? I knew that on the wide end the 1-stop difference will not matter and on the tele end, I was not sure that f/2.8 will be wide enough. I therefore went for a combination of 17-40/4 + 35/1.4.

 

Also, when I tested both I noticed that the 17-40/4 was more flare resistant. That alone tipped the sale in favor of the 17-40/4.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[john_bellenis]

"....and the few times I have gone handheld I really wanted the few extra stops the 16-35

offers. "

 

Ahhh... that'd be ONE extra stop to be precise. A very expensive extra stop, but if you need

it, you need it.

[KenPapai]

Advantages of faster lens -- (why the 16-35 2.8 is better choice than 17-40)<p>

1. Brighter viewfinder; e.g., composition and manual focusing are that much easier (MOST important for the tiny viewfinders of the APS-C sensors)<br>

2. Better background blue; i.e., your bokeh is of higher quality<br>

3. Better subject separation from the background<br>

4. Generally better optics are part of the faster lens deal<br>

5. You can use faster shutter speeds--most important for sports<br>

6. More accurate, quicker auto focusing--this is a big advantage.<br>

7. You can use lower, less noisier ISOs indoors<br>

8. Less reliance on flash indoors<br>

9. Higher resale value<br>

10. Faster lenses are usually sharper at the smaller f-stops on the same, but slower lens<br>

 

<p>

-Ken

[KenPapai]

...and, yes, you CAN use a filter (polarizer) effectively on the 16-35. I know from experience that a filter (low profile of course) works very well on that lens, even full frame, obviously. So yes. Ignore those who say you cannot or should not.

[jeff_plomley1]

Jay has a great point. If I were you I would pick up a small Leica range-finder and a few

lenses (21, 35, 75). Very small and discreet, and much more amenable to zone focussing

since distance scales on the lens barrel are actually useable. Just put some black tape over

the red dot and you are good to go.

[anson_ko]

price. 17-40 is half the price of 16-35. On 16-35 2.8, you can always step down to f4. Just like the 70-200 2.8 and 4, more ppl can afford L series lenses.

[atan]

I have 16-35 on 5D and I used an UV filter all the time with no problem. If I need to use a square filter, I will avoid the filter holder and just tape the filter to the lens. Hope this helps.

 

Cheers.

[William Michael]

Why choose a 16-35 F2.8L

 

Because you are a working professional gradually switching over to digital and you have a Canon 1DS MKII and it is 1 full stop faster and 1mm wider.

 

And the one aperture stop benifits, as previously pointed out, make the `professional` decision a no brainer.

 

WW