Another one of those 16-35 or 17-40 threads.


zac89

New Member
Dec 31, 2008
39
0
0
Hey all, I know most of you guys have seen threads like these for the longest time and are pretty used to the questions that you get, but i've done some reading around here and on the various review pages and i'm still "confused"

I'm on a 5Dmk2. my current lens is a 24-105L and it's a pretty kick butt piece of glass for my walk about needs. But recently, I realise i'm getting more and more into landscape photography, that i figure a good wide angle lens will do me good. so i embarked on a research journey ( albeit a rather short but comprehensive one) and ended up looking at these two highly debated pieces of glass.

now i'm a sucker for a good deal i.e " cheaper glass with good IQ " and who isn't? but herein lies the problem i believe. There are 2 different camps with opposing views on which is better and what not. then there's the other camp that says tamron's and tokinas are better.

So for a person who's on the brink of parting with a hefty amount of money, he would want the best bang for the buck. either that or pay through the nose for the certain quality that awaits him.

all that redundant info aside, the biggest question lies in which is the better deal? I'm gravitating towards the 16-35 solely based upon it's F2.8 and that alone, and after seeing some pictures notice the difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 in which for the 16-35, the corner's are much sharper.

so, here's the question, if i do get the 16-35, would i be very pleased with the results in shooting landscapes?

I know this post is "kinda" redundant, as i answered most of my own questions, but i'm just seeing who would advise me against this buy and why, so i can really work out if getting the 16-35 would really be the one to go for, cause getting something this expensive, would always warrant some thought before plonking down the cash.

thanks for taking the time to read this rather long and somewhat redundant post, but i thank you in advance if you take the time out to reply to this with your views and comments. =D
 

omegacs

New Member
Jun 8, 2008
177
0
0
No posts are redundant to start with. It's a common dilemma most people face, choosing between the cheaper 17-40mm f/4 over the 16-35mm f/2.8.

I'll just make my reply short.

If you're doing landscape, you'll be stopping it down to f/8 or down further. Corner sharpness for both lens are comparable at f/8. If you do not require wide-shots indoor, I'll pick the 17-40 over the 16-35 because of the price factor.

Just my 2 cents worth.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,220
3
38
SG
for landscape shooting, you probably will not need the larger aperture 2.8 over 4.0.

Someone did a comparison http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=22925873&changemode=1. While there is some peeping differences and an edge at the edges to the 16-35, the 17-40 seems to give more bang for bucks.

But of course nothing wrong getting the 16-35 either.

actually i would be looking for a versatile zoom before my nxt holiday trip nxt yr, and the 17-40 would be my lightweight choice

ryan
 

zac89

New Member
Dec 31, 2008
39
0
0
Ahh i see, and plus if i do get the 17-40, the f4 theoretically "shouldn't" be much of an issue if i plan to take it indoors, since i can bump my iso up pretty high and the 5D2 has pretty good noise control.

I raise this question as well because i'm also a photographer for my church and tho the 24-105 does a pretty good job at f4, i was basing my purchase on "flexibility". but now that i realise for my actual needs, the 17-40 isn't really that bad. is that the way of motion for most people?
 

eleveninth

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2006
6,208
2
38
have the 17 40. 3 yrs + already, doing it's job well very happy with it.
 

kaylan2000

New Member
Jan 16, 2010
552
0
0
Singapore
My advice is simple... just get hold of both the lenses. Take few sample shots and then decide.

I was pleasantly surprised by the sharpness, color reproduction of 16-35 and Toki 11-16. If I have money to spare then then there is no question.... until then I am with 17-40. Having said that, one day I will upgrade to a 16-35. So for me it is a journey as I do not have enough money to spare now.
 

CS TAN

Senior Member
Sep 3, 2007
3,661
0
0
Hong Kong
Seems that TS plan to use 17-40/16-35 for more than just landscape. He mentioned church functions e.g. otherwise he/she can consider UWA prime lenses such as 14L II.

TS already know how good the high ISO his/her 5D2 can provide so I think 17-40 will be a good choice based on best bang for the buck and what he/she wants to do. 17-40 is half the price of the 16-35.

However, if only landscape is what people are looking for, then perhaps the Korean made Samyang 14mm f/2.8 can also be consider. When you stop down to f8 and above, basically manual focusing for landscape is not an issue. This lens has received quite a very good review with excellent MTF nos. shown HERE and it is only 2/3 of the price of 17-40.
 

zac89

New Member
Dec 31, 2008
39
0
0
Seems that TS plan to use 17-40/16-35 for more than just landscape. He mentioned church functions e.g. otherwise he/she can consider UWA prime lenses such as 14L II.

TS already know how good the high ISO his/her 5D2 can provide so I think 17-40 will be a good choice based on best bang for the buck and what he/she wants to do. 17-40 is half the price of the 16-35.

However, if only landscape is what people are looking for, then perhaps the Korean made Samyang 14mm f/2.8 can also be consider. When you stop down to f8 and above, basically manual focusing for landscape is not an issue. This lens has received quite a very good review with excellent MTF nos. shown HERE and it is only 2/3 of the price of 17-40.
First of, i'm a HE =P ok that aside, yeah, you're right in saying that i'm thinking of more uses and functions for the 17-40, indeed i do wanna delve deeper into landscape photography, but it would be nice if it could double up for taking some indoor shots with different perspectives with regards to focal ranges. =)

I did however read that vignetting on the 17-40 is pretty strong at f4. but then again, i'll be shooting most of the time at f8 or more, but what about indoors? i'll most likely leave it at f4 and up the iso till maybe 800? then vignetting will still pose an issue will it not? tho i know it can be removed in photoshop
 

ManWearPants

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2008
4,201
7
38
Singapore
....if i do get the 16-35, would i be very pleased with the results in shooting landscapes?

I know this post is "kinda" redundant, as i answered most of my own questions......
Which camera bod are u using? Have you tried using your 24-105 @ f4 indoor and able to obtain a fast enough shutter speed at ISO800? Have you considered the use of filters for your landscape? You have answered your own questions but have you thought outside of what the lens can do for you. You should be thinking how you want to use the lens.

So for a person who's on the brink of parting with a hefty amount of money, he would want the best bang for the buck. either that or pay through the nose for the certain quality that awaits him.
cost is relative. So best bang for buck does not mean cheaper lens. If the f2.8 allow you to use it for most scenario compared to the f4. Then the former should have best bang for buck. If it is cheap you are refering to, your 24-105 is also able to do landscape at the wide end. For wider perspective, you can do pano shots. Furthermore, if you need to "pay through the nose" to get something, is it better to do without it?

thanks for taking the time to read this rather long and somewhat redundant post
I do agree this is a redundant post. You already know what you need and what you want.
 

woeilee

New Member
Aug 26, 2008
908
0
0
CCK
woeilee.zenfolio.com
I have this struggle too, but it is an easy choice when I know the price diff. EF 16-35L is 2X the price of EF 17-40L. To me, the price of 16-35L is too insane, esp the newer cameras are with excellent high ISO capability (eg above ISO 3200).
Another point is that 17-40L can the same 77mm with my 24-105L and 70-200L, hence I can use the same polarizer and Cokin adaptor during landscape shoot. :)
 

zac89

New Member
Dec 31, 2008
39
0
0
Ahh i see. on another note, i'm considering getting some ND grads too, which size should i go for and which manufacturer would be a good starting point? oh and yeah, i think i'm most likely gonna be getting the 17-40 =) thanks all for helping me see the light, and just as much a reality check =)
 

Last edited:

raydio

Senior Member
Jun 25, 2009
3,517
2
38
Toronto, Canada
First of, i'm a HE =P ok that aside, yeah, you're right in saying that i'm thinking of more uses and functions for the 17-40, indeed i do wanna delve deeper into landscape photography, but it would be nice if it could double up for taking some indoor shots with different perspectives with regards to focal ranges. =)

I did however read that vignetting on the 17-40 is pretty strong at f4. but then again, i'll be shooting most of the time at f8 or more, but what about indoors? i'll most likely leave it at f4 and up the iso till maybe 800? then vignetting will still pose an issue will it not? tho i know it can be removed in photoshop
I bought the 17-40 a few months ago for my 5D and have been very happy with it. I've taken a number of indoor shots with this lens and I can say that at f/4 it responds quite nicely. The only problem however is in very dimly lit rooms, there is quite a bit of vignetting at f/4. You really have to ensure that lighting is adequate to prevent this from happening.

Just a suggestion: You can compare both lens by renting them.

Another alternative, is that you can buy either lens on the BnS on this forum (which is how I bought mine). The 17-40 in particular, is quite readily available on the used market. The reason why I mention this is because if you don't like it, you can put it up for sale at the same price you bought it.
 

Last edited:

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,220
3
38
SG
on another note, i'm considering getting some ND grads too, which size should i go for and which manufacturer would be a good starting point?
Tianya , Cokin, Lee, Hitech, Singh Ray etc.
Some like Tianya, Cokin can be easily gotten locally and even mass orders from this forum.
Good starting point depends on how much you want to spend on them. Some can cost easily more than a hundred a piece. Else you can get the cheaper Tianya or Cokin ones for a start.

Ryan
 

zac89

New Member
Dec 31, 2008
39
0
0
Righty ho folks. thanks for all the replies =) appreciate the help =)

chocolateking123: yeah i know, i guess i wanted other peoples points of view and suggestions before i can plunge in i suppose =) to me anyway, the value of input of others who have used the things ( in this case lens ) before can provide me with an understanding that i suppose no ordinary lens review on the net can. =)

all in all folks, just like to thank you guys for being a helpful bunch =) cheers!! =D
 

An drew

Senior Member
May 27, 2005
3,940
9
38
If you are looking purely for landscape then the f-stop is perhaps less critical and there is a wider range of options, cheaper or even better lenses.

But if you plan to handhold in a church then f4 is rather slow. The 24-105 is still ok because the IS is quite effective. When I tried the 17-40 I was very surprised by the slow shutter speed that it requires. So a 16-35 will definitely give you more keepers. If money is no issue then the 16-35 is defintely the better lens. If you have no low light need then the 17-40 is probably adequate.