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

Canon 17-40mm f4.0 L V. 16-35mm f2.8 L

  • 05-02-2010 9:52pm
    #1
    Gr1f
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭


    Hi all,
    anyone any experience with both? Using primarily for landscapes. Read up on them a bit and seems people are split as to which is better. Or, more the the point I guess, is the 16-35 worth the extra cash it costs?

    I'll be using it with a 5d MarkII.

    Any suggestions welcome.

    Cheers
    Grif


Comments

  • #2
    hcnyla
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 100 ✭✭hcnyla


    Gr1f wrote: »
    Or, more the the point I guess, is the 16-35 worth the extra cash it costs?

    No.
    Not for landscapes at least. Most landscape shots will be using f8-f22 range so there will be no need of the extra stop that the 16-35 has.

    I have the 17-40 and it's a great lens. I use it for landscapes and interiors mainly which both require a tripod so sharpness is my only concern with the lens and it's spot on.

    I do a lot of sport, landscapes and weddings and I haven't come across any occasion yet where I would have needed the extra stop of the 16-35.

    I'm sure it has it's uses, I just haven't come across any yet!!


  • #3
    Gr1f
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Gr1f


    hcnyla wrote: »
    No.
    Not for landscapes at least. Most landscape shots will be using f8-f22 range so there will be no need of the extra stop that the 16-35 has.

    I have the 17-40 and it's a great lens. I use it for landscapes and interiors mainly which both require a tripod so sharpness is my only concern with the lens and it's spot on.

    I do a lot of sport, landscapes and weddings and I haven't come across any occasion yet where I would have needed the extra stop of the 16-35.

    I'm sure it has it's uses, I just haven't come across any yet!!

    Thanks a lot for the reply. Seems to be my conclusion also. Can't really see where i would have too many uses at 2.8 at those kind of angles.


    Some interesting reading here:
    http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/
    along with dozens of other comparisons.

    Seems the 17-40 comes into it's own on a full frame sensor at about f9 or so.

    Looking for a replacement to the Sigma 10-20 DC ex I was using on my 40d.

    Think i'll go for the 17-40 and see how I get on, I can always sell it :-)

    Thanks again


  • #4
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    I've only heard really, really good things about the 17-40. Haven't really investigated the 16-35mm admittedly.


  • #5
    DK32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 779 ✭✭✭DK32


    I got a loan of a 17-40L at one of the boards night walks. It's a really nice lens.

    B70546694F764BB09869EA2304CC40FC-500.jpg

    5D Mark II
    18 second exposure
    F22 @ 28mm
    ISO 50


  • #6
    Gr1f
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Gr1f


    Looks great.
    I'd also consider a prime. Although, which one, I have no idea yet. :-)


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Gr1f
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Gr1f


    Decided on the 17-40 in the end. See how I get on.

    Also went for a Sigma 50mm EX f/1.4 DG HSM prime. Seems to beat the Canon 1.4mm and I really can't splash out on the 1.2 at this stage.


  • #8
    DotOrg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭DotOrg


    Gr1f wrote: »
    Hi all,
    anyone any experience with both? Using primarily for landscapes. Read up on them a bit and seems people are split as to which is better. Or, more the the point I guess, is the 16-35 worth the extra cash it costs?

    I'll be using it with a 5d MarkII.

    i've owned both lenses, not really a whole lot of difference unless you need to print big where you start seeing the sharpness difference between the two

    if you need to shoot in dark environments the 16-35 is obviously better. if you are shooting landscapes you'll rarely be using less than f5.6 anyway

    the 16-35 is only worth the extra cash if you need a better low light lens and a slightly sharper lens.


Advertisement