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...
16-35mm f2.8L lens vs 17-40mm f4L lens
- Thread starter lsr792000
- Start date
- Status
lsr792000 said:
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)
lsr792000 said:
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.....
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..
I am not a canon user, but i must say that tis lens is one of the best around..
you might want to check out this site, the guy compared 16-35 vs 17-40
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
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?
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.
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.
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.lsr792000 said:
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. :thumbsup:
Din see your this post. Seemed that budget isn't a problem for you. Why ask then? Go get the best! :bsmilie:lsr792000 said:
- Status
Similar threads
