Canon 16-35 F2.8L

[Kenji]

How much does this lens cost? Compare this and 17-40mm, which is better? Using for taking Wedding ceremony.

[r32]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

[Kenji]

Originally Posted by r32 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

Seen before. All pic taken from F4 stop onwards, not photo which are @ f2.8

[Adam Goi]

Originally Posted by Kenji Seen before. All pic taken from F4 stop onwards, not photo which are @ f2.8

Hi.

The bigger questions are "Do you really need f/2.8?" and "How often will you shoot @ f/2.8?"

[xl1]

Originally Posted by Kenji How much does this lens cost? Compare this and 17-40mm, which is better? Using for taking Wedding ceremony.

IMHO, use for wedding, most of the time u use flash and f/4 above, normaly f/5.6, so f/2.8 is useless, unless use no flash then it worth, otherwise 17-40 is more than enough.

got mine last time is $2200

[Snowcrash]

Originally Posted by Kenji How much does this lens cost? Compare this and 17-40mm, which is better? Using for taking Wedding ceremony.

Better as in:-
1) size
2) picture quality
3) focus speed
4) impress client
5) weight

16-35 have it's supporters.... so do 17-40

As for me.... I'm considering a tamron 17-35 for it's weight/size/price in the near future

[Kenji]

Originally Posted by Adam Goi Hi. The bigger questions are "Do you really need f/2.8?" and "How often will you shoot @ f/2.8?"

Actually it depend. Last month I help my cousin to take his wedding shots, their play is each person come in from different door, only with spot light shine on them. If I use flash to take, the whole picture will be bright, don't have the sensation. But then if use F2.8, it will show the actually play.

[srisaro]

read thorugh certain bits in the thread.. http://clubsnap.org/forums/showthread.php?t=136872This has some answers to your comparison..

[Firefox]

Originally Posted by Kenji Actually it depend. Last month I help my cousin to take his wedding shots, their play is each person come in from different door, only with spot light shine on them. If I use flash to take, the whole picture will be bright, don't have the sensation. But then if use F2.8, it will show the actually play.

Could have slowed the shutter speed down to like 1/30s & use the flash to fill-in.. Should capture more of the ambient lighting..

[sweat100]

At year end, i have to cover a wedding for one of the teachers. I am also considering the 16-35 or the 17-40. I am thinking... Will i need the 2.8 alot cos of those early morning indoor shots (eg makeup, dressing up, cooking etc...). These shots cant have flash as it will be distracting. People who owns the 17-40 and used it for wedding, does that limit you in a way or another?
Also with this lens, i can do night street photog more effectively? Since those open markets are usually quite dim and u cant use flash. I used my sony f707 during night street photog and find that i use f2 most of the time. So I am seriously considering the 2.8. The greatest setback is of course the money. Why must 1 stop = $1100?

[litefoot]

Originally Posted by Adam Goi Hi. The bigger questions are "Do you really need f/2.8?" and "How often will you shoot @ f/2.8?"

That shouldn't be the question. In general most fast lenses are great in terms of optics. Applying simple rule of thumb in photography you shouldn't be shooting pix wide open most of the time. In my opinion, so far none of my f/2.8 zooms produce sharp enough pix by my standard. I avoid f/2.8 and some times i bump up the ISO a little to do that. f/2.8 is to get me out of sticky situation where a slightly poor quality pix is better than no pix and you dun really enlarge them to show.

[mpenza]

17-40 F4L is good enough for weddings (with external flash). don't think u really need the 16-35 F2.8L. I've even shot a couple of weddings using the EF-S 18-55. The couples were happy with the results too.