Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 16-35mm f2.8L lens vs 17-40mm f4L lens

  1. #1

    Default 16-35mm f2.8L lens vs 17-40mm f4L lens

    Hello. I have seen many reviews about these 2 lens. Hope to get either one of these lens. Which one will you buy if you were me? I like to take landscape photos and the specifications are very similiar except the f number, so its kinda hard to choose...

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsr792000
    Hello. I have seen many reviews about these 2 lens. Hope to get either one of these lens. Which one will you buy if you were me? I like to take landscape photos and the specifications are very similiar except the f number, so its kinda hard to choose...
    very common question, if the previous threads don't answer your question, please let us know which aspect you are unclear about?

    if you are using a 1.6x DSLR, I would not recommend either for landscapes as you can't get 20mm/24mm which are 'workhorse' focal lengths for landscapes (at least, if you are a fan of landscape photographers like Galen Rowell). The 10-22 is the better option for 1.6x DSLRs (again, search the previous threads)

  3. #3

    Default

    Oh thanks. Did read through the previous thread regarding these two lenses. Wow the prices offered in this forum are much lower as compared to the retail price.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SGee
    Posts
    1,572

    Default

    if i were u, i'll get both Tamron's 11-18mm Di II & 18-200mm XR Di II lenses combo.

    i dun mind d slower lense, but thatz a v wide working angle. (jus my opinion)

    fellow CSers feel free 2 comment. i still w/ film arh. hehee...

  5. #5
    Senior Member Halfmoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hougang, Singapore.
    Posts
    4,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsr792000
    Hello. I have seen many reviews about these 2 lens. Hope to get either one of these lens. Which one will you buy if you were me? I like to take landscape photos and the specifications are very similiar except the f number, so its kinda hard to choose...
    Shooting landscape usually use smaller aperature of 8-16.... so I think if you want to save money, the 17-40mm f4L is more than enough since both lenses are L, and quite well built and good lenses quality......

    But if you have a lot of money, then, take the 16-35mm f2.8L.

    Hope that should answer your questions.

    Just let you know I have none of the lenses, but I decided to get the 17-40mm later for landscape shots after some thoughts, but I have some primes with f2 and below to complement the zooms for low lights conditions.....
    Last edited by Halfmoon; 6th August 2005 at 11:32 PM.
    Art is perception; Perception is art.

  6. #6
    Senior Member GENO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Teddy Bear Land
    Posts
    2,981

    Default

    The 17-40mm is a good lens..cheaper too..portriats, landscape will do just great..

    I am not a canon user, but i must say that tis lens is one of the best around..
    Take both its legs down first, then cuts its tail, next is shoot between its eyes:devil:

  7. #7
    Senior Member denniskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bukit batok
    Posts
    5,468

    Default

    you might want to check out this site, the guy compared 16-35 vs 17-40

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml
    photography makes one sees things from all angles.

  8. #8
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Get the 17-40L

  9. #9

    Default

    Oh thanks for all your comments. I got my 16-35mm lens yesterday. Decided to take that lens as i am taking shots indoor under low light conditions as well. So the f2.8 will come in handy. Also, i can 'up' the f number but cant 'down' it if i get the 17-40mm lens. Next lens i am targeting is the 85mm f1.2L lens. Any comments on that lens?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    nice bokeh but slow AF.

    btw, f2.8 is not magical. u still need to watch out for slow shutter speeds and increase ISO accordingly if you're shooting avaiable light without support.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Virgo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    West of Singapore
    Posts
    4,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsr792000
    Hello. I have seen many reviews about these 2 lens. Hope to get either one of these lens. Which one will you buy if you were me? I like to take landscape photos and the specifications are very similiar except the f number, so its kinda hard to choose...
    If you take mostly landscapes, go for the 17-40L. You won't need the extra 1 or 2 f stops, cos you'll most likely use a tripod for landscape.

    You can use it for normal group photos too, which I did for wedding photography.

    The 17-40L won't be wrong. You won't regret it.
    Kind Regards
    My Picture Website

  12. #12
    Senior Member Virgo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    West of Singapore
    Posts
    4,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsr792000
    Oh thanks for all your comments. I got my 16-35mm lens yesterday. Decided to take that lens as i am taking shots indoor under low light conditions as well. So the f2.8 will come in handy. Also, i can 'up' the f number but cant 'down' it if i get the 17-40mm lens. Next lens i am targeting is the 85mm f1.2L lens. Any comments on that lens?
    Din see your this post. Seemed that budget isn't a problem for you. Why ask then? Go get the best!
    Kind Regards
    My Picture Website

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •