Which wideangle on my 1D mark III?

[christian_balslev_van_rand]

Hey everybody, I asked you guys about these things before, but now at least some

of it is decided. I ended up buying the 1D mark III, WOW, the high ISO

performance blew me away. This is without a doubt the best camera I have ever

owned (except maybe for the wonderfully excentric Plaubel Makina 67 I acquired a

while ago). Now I still need my wideangle. I no longer consider the older 16-35,

but now I am considering either the 17-40 or the 16-35II. The price difference

of course, is almost astronomical. Anybody own both of these and have something

to say about using them on 1,3 crop bodies? By the way, anyone have any

experience with the 20mm 2,8? It seems to take a beating in some reviews, while

others seem quite happy about it.

[steve_crist]

I use the 17-40 on my 5D and 20D bodies. It's sharp and plenty wide. Well worth the savings over the 16-35. It always gets good reviews. You won't be sorry if you get it. Enjoy the 1DmkIII. When I sell my 20D that's my next camera.

[rtrace]

It's a question of one stop. The 16-35 has a one stop advantage. If you shoot wide open and available light, it's the clear winner. If you shoot stopped down, the 17-40 is the winner.

[m_barbu1]

That you're concerned about high ISO performance tells me that you could benefit from the extra stop. I'd get the 16-35.

[anson_ko]

16-35II is the clear winner. The camera itself can see better in the dark in 2.8 and focus will be more accurate instead of AF hunting. If you never shoot in dark environment, then 17-40 is ok.

[graybeard]

ditto anson ko. if the focusing slows you down the great capture rate of your mark will be compromised.

[KenPapai]

16-35 II hands down; you'll always regret it if you don't. It's only another $600 over the f4-limited 17-40 right? You have a 1D3, so get the best wide angle zoom Canon makes.

[colinsouthern]

Another vote for the 16-35/2.8 II - It's faster, wider, and sharper around the periphery.

[William Michael]

EF16 to 35F2.8L MkII: it is an F2.8 lens the other lens is not . . .

 

you want performance, don`t you?

 

WW

[anson_ko]

I have 24-105IS f4.0 and 28-300IS 3.5-5.6. When I shoot at low light condition, there is no match with my 17-35 f2.8 or other faster lenses. F4.0 or slower will have AF hunting in low light. Of course, in daylight f4.0 is ok.

[yakim_peled1]

Is the 16-35/2.8 II wide enough for you? If so, get it. If not, consider the Sigma 10-20 which is useful from 11mm and up without vignetting. Just make sure you get a good copy.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[susie_todd]

New to this forum.

 

Getting ready to shoot team photos for a middle school. I have a 30D and my lens is 70-

200 f2.8 IS; however, I was told to get a wider lens for the team photos.

 

Sorry for the ignorance, but what does a wider lens mean? Just getting into shooting for $

- I've just done my kid's sports, etc. Will the 70-200 not work?

 

Appreciate any feedback.

[yakim_peled1]

1. http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#focallength

 

2. No offence but if you don't know the answer to this question I think you many want to transfer the job to someone else.

 

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/misc.html#weddingphoto

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.