Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

16-35 f2.8II L or 17-40 F4L

  • 14-01-2009 4:26pm
    #1
    jackdaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭


    I was wondering which of these to get .... the 17-40 f4L is way cheaper ...

    and i don't think one needs f2.8 on a wide lens ?

    what do you think ?


Comments

  • #2
    Covey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,368 ✭✭✭Covey


    Depends on what you use it for??


  • #3
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    jackdaw wrote: »
    and i don't think one needs f2.8 on a wide lens ?

    Why?

    If you have the money, and you think you'd use the focal length, I'd go for the 2.8


  • #4
    Paulw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    I have the 16-35mm f/2.8 II L lens and think it's brilliant. I've used it at f/2.8 with great effect, and have also used it at f/22.

    It's a wonderful lens, and I think it's worth the price.


  • #5
    Covey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,368 ✭✭✭Covey


    Fajitas! wrote: »
    Why?

    If you have the money, and you think you'd use the focal length, I'd go for the 2.8

    Agree, except if your using it only for Landscapes, it may not be worth the extra money.


  • #6
    Mycroft H
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,313 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    Tammy 17-50 f2.8 (maintaines 2.8 from the wide to the tele end)
    Should be cheaper than the canon f2.8 and gives you extra reach.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    PCPhoto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    why not the 17-35mm f2.8 .... or the 16-35mm f2.8 (mark 1 version)


  • #8
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    I got the 17-40L as it would not get the use out of the f2.8 especially with the 24-70L on FF


  • #9
    PaulieC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    I think you should go for the 16-35. It could keep the 5DMKII company while they're both wrapped in cotton wool :D


  • #10
    PCPhoto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    Jackdaw ..... you are trying to compare the top end newest lens (16-35mm mk2) with one that is around a couple of years (17-40 f4)

    This isnt an exact match but for the older 16-35mm v 17-40mm heres a comparisson that I found.

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


  • #11
    bmcgrath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭bmcgrath


    landyman wrote: »
    Tammy 17-50 f2.8 (maintaines 2.8 from the wide to the tele end)
    Should be cheaper than the canon f2.8 and gives you extra reach.

    That thing has a horrible noisy AF system.

    Anywho if I were you I'd go for the 16-35 f/2.8. Overall it's a better lens than the 17-40 f/4. Not that the 17-40 is bad or anything. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    PixelTrawler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,299 ✭✭✭PixelTrawler


    Im hoping to get a 5d mkii soon and one of the first lenses i want to get is a wide angle zoom either the 16-35 or the 17-40

    Now cash is important... is the 16-35 worth over twice the money....

    Usage will be mainly landscapes only, therefore the f/2.8 is not hugely important.

    Is the 16-35 much better optically


  • #13
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    Depends on what you use it for, I use mine for landscape and portraits on the 1dmk3. If its landscapes then its at f8 and above, for portraits its at f8 and with a flash.


  • #14
    PixelTrawler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,299 ✭✭✭PixelTrawler


    As mentioned, landscapes so more then likely f/8 or above usual usage...

    Is there much in it optically at those apetures (normally around the lense sweet spots anyway)...

    Reviews on photozone.de mention if you don't need the f/2.8 you'd be fine with the 17-40 but its nice to hear the opinion of people who have used both...

    Think I'll aim for the 17-40 and put the extra cash towards another piece of glass...


  • #15
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    Optically I would imagine both would be fine with the f2.8 the main difference.


  • #16
    jackdaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭jackdaw


    Thanks guys ... Hilarious joke about the cotton wool ... of course i wouldn't wrap my 5dii in cotton wool ...... theres DUST in cotton wool !! :eek:


Advertisement