16-35mm f2.8 L or 17-40mm L fast focusing...

[LeaderXXX]

Which lens focusing faster and sharp??

[knneo]

Originally Posted by LeaderXXX Which lens focusing faster and sharp??

True, wonder anyone got both lens to test the speed side by side.

[JediForce4ever]

If in low light,on same body, shld be the 16-35 that focusses faster.
Sharpness wise, it has been proven that the 16-35 is sharper.

[freelancer]

Originally Posted by JediForce4ever Sharpness wise, it has been proven that the 16-35 is sharper.

The 16-35 is sharper on the long end (35mm) whereas the 17-40 is sharper on the wide end (17mm). Its like six or half dozen between these 2 lens. If you do not need F2.8 the 17-40 is the better value buy.

[Snoweagle]

I vote for the 16-35mm f/2.8L in terms of all roundedness compared to the 17-40mm f/4L. U see the price also know liao

[holeinone]

I would vote for the 17-40 for the lighter weight. Much easier on the photographer if you are shooting for long hours or on a trip where you have to lug along other equipment.

[Garion]

Originally Posted by JediForce4ever If in low light,on same body, shld be the 16-35 that focusses faster. Sharpness wise, it has been proven that the 16-35 is sharper.

Are you sure? Where did you get that from?

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by holeinone I would vote for the 17-40 for the lighter weight. Much easier on the photographer if you are shooting for long hours or on a trip where you have to lug along other equipment.

Yes i've used the 17-40 last saturday for an entire days wedding shoot and its weight is definitely good. But i'd rather go for quality than weight.

[Belle&Sebastain]

Originally Posted by holeinone I would vote for the 17-40 for the lighter weight. Much easier on the photographer if you are shooting for long hours or on a trip where you have to lug along other equipment.

its hardly any heavier really, its only 125g difference.

[syke]

Originally Posted by JediForce4ever If in low light,on same body, shld be the 16-35 that focusses faster. Sharpness wise, it has been proven that the 16-35 is sharper.

Not really. some reports show otherwise with the 17-40 performing mucho better. If you look at the MTF graphs, they are on par. Really down to whether you've got a good copy and/or whether you need the f2.8.

[Horus]

hmm...i've tried using the F4 in discos and can't even get a focus lock! i even double checked that the infra red assist from my 580ex is working too! i was using F5.6 then but that should not be the determining factor right. will a F2.8 help in this situation? anyone?

[LeaderXXX]

How about if shooting outdoor??

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by LeaderXXX How about if shooting outdoor??

Shooting outdoors wouldn't make much of a difference unless in low lighting conditions then the fast AF of the 16-35 will be more obvious.

[syke]

Originally Posted by Horus hmm...i've tried using the F4 in discos and can't even get a focus lock! i even double checked that the infra red assist from my 580ex is working too! i was using F5.6 then but that should not be the determining factor right. will a F2.8 help in this situation? anyone?

Shooting in a nightclub? Then I think the 85mm f1.2, 35mm f1.4 or 24mm f1.4 would be better for you.

[freelancer]

Originally Posted by Snoweagle Shooting outdoors wouldn't make much of a difference unless in low lighting conditions then the fast AF of the 16-35 will be more obvious.

I am not so sure about the faster AF from the F2.8 lens. Indoors if you need the extra f-stop going from F4 to F2.8, maybe consider boosting the ISO. The current dSLR are pretty clean at high ISOs.

When light is really low, you invariably need a fast prime - a F2.8 lens is not going to cut it. But then you need to content with the razor thin DOF

[sweat100]

I feel that inorder to feel the faster AF of the f2.8, you need to use the high precison AF points meant for f2.8 of faster. The cameras with these AF sensors can bring a difference. IMO, the 16-35mm can focus quite fast when i use it with EOS 30. Faster than the 50mm f1.4, though it is a brighter lens. Maybe due to Micro USM, or too thin a DOF such that the camera cant lock focus properly.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by freelancer I am not so sure about the faster AF from the F2.8 lens. Indoors if you need the extra f-stop going from F4 to F2.8, maybe consider boosting the ISO. The current dSLR are pretty clean at high ISOs. When light is really low, you invariably need a fast prime - a F2.8 lens is not going to cut it. But then you need to content with the razor thin DOF

Correct, usually i'll use the 2.8 end when i'm only taking portraits. Other than that, indoors i'll use f/8.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by sweat100 I feel that inorder to feel the faster AF of the f2.8, you need to use the high precison AF points meant for f2.8 of faster. The cameras with these AF sensors can bring a difference. IMO, the 16-35mm can focus quite fast when i use it with EOS 30. Faster than the 50mm f1.4, though it is a brighter lens. Maybe due to Micro USM, or too thin a DOF such that the camera cant lock focus properly.

I've used the 17-40 on my EOS 30 and AF is rather fast too. All my shots using this lens are indoors and performance is impressive.

In your point, the 16-35 being faster than the 50 f/1.4 is not only due to the Ring USM on the 16-35, but must also consider the barrel size.

[Belle&Sebastain]

Originally Posted by Snoweagle In your point, the 16-35 being faster than the 50 f/1.4 is not only due to the Ring USM on the 16-35, but must also consider the barrel size.

pardon my newbieness, what has barrel size got to do with focussing speed, please enlighten me

[drumma]

Originally Posted by Snoweagle I've used the 17-40 on my EOS 30 and AF is rather fast too. All my shots using this lens are indoors and performance is impressive. In your point, the 16-35 being faster than the 50 f/1.4 is not only due to the Ring USM on the 16-35, but must also consider the barrel size.

ditto B&S.. i would like to know too.