Advice Needed - 16-35mm Mk II or 17-40mm

[diver-hloc]

Hi..... Headach, headach, headach......

At last found myself a reason to get a legendary Canon's "L" lens..... but can't really decide on which to get

16-35mm Mk II
Pro - f2.8 !!
Con - $$$$$$$$$

17-40mm
Pro - Not that $$$ (2nd hand lagi cheap)
Con - f4

The lens would be used for landscape, walkabout, and wedding shoot - dinner only, which is why the f4 might be a problem - .....

I also when to most of those Internet review sites..... with 'PhotoZone' giving 17-40mm better value then 16-35mm if I don't need the f2.8..... that is where the Headach is coming from......

Need advice from 'expert' here who had used or own both lense(wow... rich man/woman) to give me some hint...... But pls, no - "my lens is better than your lens and I'll put my fist to your face if you don't agree" - kind of talk...... Peace.

End of the day..... still very much depends on my limited buget. (working for SMRT doesn't pay THAT well..... )

Thxs for any info

[genegoh]

If you're not going FF, you may consider the 17-55.
But if you are, then will you use the ultra wide for events like weddings?
It's a rather personal choice. =)

[flipfreak]

nvr tried the mk2. tried the mk1 and owned the 17-40 before. 17-40 is a good lens to own except for the distortions. mk1 was quite disappointing wide open. mk2 will be better but how often will u be shooting wide open. that is the point to consider if u picking btw the 2 and on the crop body, 17 and 16 not much diff in terms of fov.

[falconite]

Haaa.. guess u have to sell the other kidney for either one anyway..

I own a 17-40mm but when i had the chance recently to try the 16-35mm was immediately impressed by the sharpness and Image quality... its significant and justifiable with the extra SGD1000

The only thing thta stopped me was the price. I still can live with the qiality of the 17-40 for now. Now that is purely personal. Comparing prices straight.. i rather spend 2K on a 17-40mm and a 100mm F2.8 (with room for filters?) than just one 16-35mm F2.8 In event you can use the 100mm macro lens (just the hassel to switch) but 16-35mm dun really let u in close on the Macro... my sentiments

[diver-hloc]

Thxs for all the advice so far.....

yeah.... could only 'sell' one kidney and live....can't have everything....

Anymore advice.... thxs

[coffee3in1]

Originally Posted by diver-hloc The lens would be used for landscape, walkabout, and wedding shoot - dinner only, which is why the f4 might be a problem - .....

f/4 shud b ok with landscape.

1 stop is a big difference for wedding and walkabout when u're max out ISO @ 3200. But then, the UWA effect are fairly pronounced when shooting people. I suggest u rent the f/2.8 to try before deciding.

If u're not on FF cam, then 17-55 f/2.8 will prolly b better for u. Got IS somemore...

[Snoweagle]

In fact pros and cons between these 2 lenses is very subjective to individuals. I own the 17-40 and have also tried both versions of the 16-35 and in comparison to 17-40, 16-35 MK I pic quality at wide end is not as refined as 17-40 and the MK II solves that and all are shot at f/4.

At f/2.8 it tends to get a little soft for the MK II but still manageable. If u shoot lots of weddings and low-lighting events, the 16-35 is preferred. Else, 17-40 is more than enough.

[Headshotzx]

I personally find that the 17-40 f/4L is enough for my usual shooting trends with WA (landscapes, architecture, well-lit group shots, close bloated-nose portrait shooting). I borrowed my friend's 16-35mm f/2.8L II for a shoot, and couldn't see any visual difference between the 2 at f/4. Sure, the 16-35 is f/2.8, but how often are you gonna use wide aperture on a WA lens?

To me, since I just recently got an external flash, the 17-40 is a lot more worth it than the 16-35mm. Too dark? Use external flash. Still too dark? Then forget about f/2.8, it won't help. Get a fast prime instead (30mm f/1.4 sigma, 28mm f/1.8 canon, 24mm L, 35mm L).

[JediForce4ever]

Well, I think what you need to figure out is whether you need 2.8, as you put it.Once you've decided on that, then everything else just comes along.How to know?Shoot alot and understand the way you shoot.Thats all.

[antacid]

i'd go for the 17-55 or sigma 17-70. you get the best of both worlds.

image quality...i can't see the difference. maybe those computer charts can, but one lens is as good as the other for me.

it all depends on how much $ you have to spend. i like to spread it out so i can maximise my dollar. YMMV!

[Kit]

Originally Posted by diver-hloc Hi..... Headach, headach, headach...... At last found myself a reason to get a legendary Canon's "L" lens..... but can't really decide on which to get 16-35mm Mk II Pro - f2.8 !! Con - $$$$$$$$$ 17-40mm Pro - Not that $$$ (2nd hand lagi cheap) Con - f4 The lens would be used for landscape, walkabout, and wedding shoot - dinner only, which is why the f4 might be a problem - ..... I also when to most of those Internet review sites..... with 'PhotoZone' giving 17-40mm better value then 16-35mm if I don't need the f2.8..... that is where the Headach is coming from...... Need advice from 'expert' here who had used or own both lense(wow... rich man/woman) to give me some hint...... But pls, no - "my lens is better than your lens and I'll put my fist to your face if you don't agree" - kind of talk...... Peace. End of the day..... still very much depends on my limited buget. (working for SMRT doesn't pay THAT well..... ) Thxs for any info

Basically, there's only 2 things to consider. Need and budget.

Need - you've got to assess yourself. Do you think you need f2.8? If you are making money out of shooting wedding, then you shouldn't asking what lens to use to begin with.

Budget - if your budget covers the f2.8 then by all means, get it. If not, the f4 or like some other mentioned, the 17-55 f2.8. Mind you, that cost quite a bit more than the f4 as well.

Its so simple...

[diver-hloc]

Hi..... just like to thxs everyone who spent time advicing here.....

Yup.... COST, is always a factor. The reason why I have not consider 17-55mm f2.8 IS is mainly because of higher cost than 17-40mm.... and that it can't be use on a FF camera..... (which I believe will be affordable within 5-8yrs).

I think forumrunner - Headshotzx - put it down when he/she write

Quote: "To me, since I just recently got an external flash, the 17-40 is a lot more worth it than the 16-35mm. Too dark? Use external flash. Still too dark? Then forget about f/2.8, it won't help."

I think I would best be getting a 2nd hand 17-40mm f4..... No point paying throught the nose when I don't even knows how long this "wedding shoot" sideline is going to last..... hahaha, might not even make enough to pay for the lens.

Thxs again

[Saabo King]

Also bear in mind the weight of the 16-35 and its hard to find filter size (82mm).

[Russ]

I have a 17-40 and I do not find that I need the 2.8 nor do I need any more IQ that it can deliver. If you need 2.8 and don't want to spend $$$$ the Tamron 17-50 is also a great lens.

[diver-hloc]

Originally Posted by Russ I have a 17-40 and I do not find that I need the 2.8 nor do I need any more IQ that it can deliver. If you need 2.8 and don't want to spend $$$$ the Tamron 17-50 is also a great lens.

I use Tamron's older 17-35mm f2.8 myself for 'Wedding Dinner' shoot..... but for some reason, when compare to the other photographer with the same camera (400D) and setting (ISO, WB.... etc). Our photo turns out slightly difference..... with mine being 'Off' on the WB side. The other guy was using 24-105mm L.....

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by Saabo King Also bear in mind the weight of the 16-35 and its hard to find filter size (82mm).

Not hard to find. They're readily available.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by Russ I have a 17-40 and I do not find that I need the 2.8.

I strongly second this point!

[Bluestrike]

IMHO, I find that you sure consider 3rd party lens. Having tried 16-35, 17-40 and my recent acquistion of the Tokina 12-24, and using 10D with a 1.6 factor, the Canon offering seem to go haywire, neither wide nor tele. The Tokina offer mi a better solution in my case.

Picture quality wise, I would stand by the Tokina, it sharp enough to my taste. One thing I like abt it is the constant F4. But since Canon offer USM for the 2 lenses you spoke off, I think that abt one thing bad abt Tokina. slightly slower AF and noiser.

[iboey]

I think the 17-40 is already very sharp at f4 wide open. For me personally i do not need a 2.8 for weddings as flash is usually adopted. A wedding photographer shld have 2 body covering wide and another body with fast primes. To me f1.4 is considered fast instead of a 2.8

[yehosaphat]

Typically for wide angles, having a large aperture like f2.8 is when you do not want to use flash when shooting indoors. But typically wedding shots are coupled with flash. Otherwise use prime lens for such shots without flash. 16-35mm is an overkill imo but if you have $$$ to spare, then good to have.