Canon 16~35 F2.8 or 17~40 F4 ?
- Thread starter Besandy
- Start date
Consider 16-35 f2.8 II if:
1) you have more budget
2) sometimes shoot in lowlight conditions - f2.8 lens more able to focus in lowlight
3) don't usually use Flash
4) The 1mm wider angle for landscape (1mm on UWA is quite significant)
5) You will upgrade to Full Frame in the future
Consider 17-40 if:
1) you have less budget
2) Don't mind a F4 as you usually shoot at >f8
3) Seldom shoot indoors
4) Use flash if you shoot indoors
Consider also, 17-55 f2.8 if
1) IS lens
2) more useful on a crop camera like 50D
3) don't intend to go FF
Consider also, 10-22 if:
1) you want wider for your landscape shots
2) Not upgrading to FF
Others will recommend sigma UWAs also, but since you only listed canon lenses, so I only recommended canon EF & EFS lenses
1) you have more budget
2) sometimes shoot in lowlight conditions - f2.8 lens more able to focus in lowlight
3) don't usually use Flash
4) The 1mm wider angle for landscape (1mm on UWA is quite significant)
5) You will upgrade to Full Frame in the future
Consider 17-40 if:
1) you have less budget
2) Don't mind a F4 as you usually shoot at >f8
3) Seldom shoot indoors
4) Use flash if you shoot indoors
Consider also, 17-55 f2.8 if
1) IS lens
2) more useful on a crop camera like 50D
3) don't intend to go FF
Consider also, 10-22 if:
1) you want wider for your landscape shots
2) Not upgrading to FF
Others will recommend sigma UWAs also, but since you only listed canon lenses, so I only recommended canon EF & EFS lenses
I would recommend EF 24mm f1.4L II USM if your budget allows.
It is a better choice if just for shooting landscape alone.
I don't agree. A zoom would be a better choice for landscape unless you're going for pure image quality, then head for the Carl Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/3.5.
If you can afford the 16-35, go get the 17-40L and spend the remainder of the money on something else like an 85mm 1.8 or save it! 17-40L is smaller and for landscapes you'd probably be stopping down anyway.
if you want wider, go for the EF-S 10-22. I don't see any point going for 16-35 or 17-40 on a APS-C if you're looking for a wide-ange lens. In fact even the 18-55 IS can do decent landscapes at f/8 and above.
So detailed~~ Thanks very much~~
my budget is around S$1000 and some times also want to shoot portrait, what is the choice?
:embrass:
i would strongly recommend you go for EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55 IS and EF-S 55-250 IS. Yes, all these are not Ls but it sure covers wider focal length than those in your mind.
70-200 f/4 w/o IS is PITA to use. :nono:
I would recommend EF 24mm f1.4L II USM if your budget allows.
It is a better choice if just for shooting landscape alone.
sorry for saying not so clear, I want also take this lens for travelling ：）maybe for family shooting cause I am not a pro and can not keep many lens for each situation
Thanks~~
From your plan, this lens needs to be your standard zoom and probably will be the most used lens.
You should look at a f2.8 lens, either a 16-35 f2.8 or 17-55 f2.8IS
reall? if w/o IS, 70-200 f4 is not acceptable?
because I am a beginner and in my mind I should have 3 lens, 1 WA and one prime and one telescope..... what is the best combination?
thanks~
You may want to consider EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM as it is one of the best Canon walk-around/all-purpose lenses made.
yeah， I considered this, but the 50D is not a FF, so will it be not so wide?
Thanks~~
A Canon 17-40mm f4 user with a Canon full frame body. It's quite wide at 17mm but the F4 is slow for low light situtation. I would love to get Canon 16-35mm F2.8 II but the cost deter me. If you have plenty of bullets, go for the Canon 16-35mm F2.8 II. For used 2nd hand lens at classified, one 16-35mm f2.8 can get two 17-40mm f4 liao ;p Quality wise, Canon 17-40mm F4 lens is quite sharp to me.
the 17-40 served my well on my 7d. very sharp. F4 is not a prob as i am using a 580ex2.
i recommend the 17-40, 580ex2 and u ll still have budget for 50mm f.1.4 for super low light, good bokeh and potrait. still cheaper than 16-35 f2.8.
i recommend the 17-40, 580ex2 and u ll still have budget for 50mm f.1.4 for super low light, good bokeh and potrait. still cheaper than 16-35 f2.8.
hey ts i was in your shoes before. haha...in the end got myself the 17-40. why? because it fits my budget and its a good ppl shooter too on the crop. pair it up with any flash and u are great indoors. u can see samples wad 17-40 can do on my blog in the chinese new year period albums. audenphotos.shutterfly.com
no point spending 2k+ on the 16-35 if 1) your budget dun permit it 2) its not necessary.
bro I think you started from the wrong path. Those who are new in photography normally found themselves in these problems:
1. Try to cover all focal lengths, from ultra wide to telephoto
2. Obsessed with red rings
Normally for beginners I would advice them to stick with their kit lens for a little longer, till they know what is the limitation or when their photos demands a different perspective. That is there new lens come in. You can cover from ultra-wide to telephoto but soon you'll find that you use certain lens pretty often and neglect the rest.
I myself have been using the kit lens (18-55) for quite a long while, then got my 10-22, then got my 24-70L, then sold my 18-55, then slowly move up and get what I need. Try not to buy any new lens just to cover missing focal lengths.
Similar threads
