Get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC or EF 17-55 f2.8 IS. Both will serve you well for your requirements.
Canon 16~35 F2.8 or 17~40 F4 ?
- Thread starter Besandy
- Start date
For the 2 options, choose the 17-40mm. It will be very useful in good light. You have a f1.4 lens so you will know when you need f2.8 and when you need f4. If you dont really need f2.8 then forget about 16-35.
Might you be interested in an ultra zoom ?? 18-200mm ??
It will cover wides and telephotos at the same time. Decent in good light, not ultimate image quality but may be more than sufficient for your purposes. (eg family photos, webposts, occasional normal 4R printouts) Fits the 1k budget also... nice for travelling ....
The 50mm will come in use indoors, low light, or for "portriats" which i assume is the typical background fadeaway kind of picture
my humble 2c worth.....
Happy shooting whichever you pick !!
Might you be interested in an ultra zoom ?? 18-200mm ??
It will cover wides and telephotos at the same time. Decent in good light, not ultimate image quality but may be more than sufficient for your purposes. (eg family photos, webposts, occasional normal 4R printouts) Fits the 1k budget also... nice for travelling ....
The 50mm will come in use indoors, low light, or for "portriats" which i assume is the typical background fadeaway kind of picture
my humble 2c worth.....
Happy shooting whichever you pick !!
Hi Besandy. What are you looking for? :dunno: I am confused now with everyone start commenting without even looking at your needs
Do you know that UWA or WA lenses have one big issue -- Corner sharpness at minimum focal length? WA/UWA lenses are usually sharp at center but not sharp at corners.
I have used both 17-40 and 16-35 Mark II but I am not fully satisfied on their quality, although there are great lenses for landscapes, but that is just me. If you are looking for quality and have budget, I would suggest either the Canon 24L Mark II or the better CZ 21mm ZE. They are the best WA lenses so far. :thumbsup:
But if you have $$$ constraints, then try the 17-40 or 10-22. They are good lenses but don't expect Canon 24L and CZ quality
It really depends on what you need and how serious you are. :think:
Do you know that UWA or WA lenses have one big issue -- Corner sharpness at minimum focal length? WA/UWA lenses are usually sharp at center but not sharp at corners.
I have used both 17-40 and 16-35 Mark II but I am not fully satisfied on their quality, although there are great lenses for landscapes, but that is just me. If you are looking for quality and have budget, I would suggest either the Canon 24L Mark II or the better CZ 21mm ZE. They are the best WA lenses so far. :thumbsup:
But if you have $$$ constraints, then try the 17-40 or 10-22. They are good lenses but don't expect Canon 24L and CZ quality
It really depends on what you need and how serious you are. :think:
Last edited:
If 1.6mm difference is not a problem for you,
then 17-40mm is more than enough for that purpose
Reasons :
you could use a similar filter with the same 77mm ring size
between the 3 combination :
17-40mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm f/2.8
Besides,
IMO, I don't think landscape would get the benefits a lot from f/2.8
If your budget is around 1k then you don't have a dilemma at all, 17-40 period.
Unless you can stretch your budget to around 1.5k to get a second hand 16-35 Mark I which is not as sharp as the 17-40.
For above photo, I only downsize with photoshop. Of course behind a nice photo, there's plenty of bad photos taken liao. The 'fog' U mentioned, I suspect is the condensation due to the temperture difference.
My advice to TS;
Tamron 17-50 mm f2.8 VC
Has image stabiliser, very sharp, and suitable for all types of multipurpose shooting.
If you are not planning on going full-frame anytime soon, I feel 17-40 f4L is not a good choice due to the more limited focal length range and slower aperture.
The 16-35L II is twice your budget and will not impress until you step into the wonderful world of full-frame.
Tamron 17-50 mm f2.8 VC
Has image stabiliser, very sharp, and suitable for all types of multipurpose shooting.
If you are not planning on going full-frame anytime soon, I feel 17-40 f4L is not a good choice due to the more limited focal length range and slower aperture.
The 16-35L II is twice your budget and will not impress until you step into the wonderful world of full-frame.
yeah 17-40 and 16-35 wont impress unless u are on FF. oh how i wish i am on ff right now. but in high contrast situations, these 2 lenses won't let you down. they produce great colors too. i notice the big difference in color reproduction between my 17-40 and 50 f1.8. big difference. the 17-40's images are more dynamic/vibrant, while the 50 f1.8's are more flat toned. anyway, if u know u are using 17-40mm alot and u are going FF and want an UWA lens when u go FF, then it's alright to get the 17-40.
Since you are using 50D crop body.
My suggestion will be as follow.
1) 10-22mm (For Landscape)
2) 17-55mm (For street and walk about)
3) 50mm (For Human Portraiture since you already own it)
4) 55-250mm (For longer reach)
But if you want to have a better setup.
1) 10-22mm
2) 24-70mm
3) 70-200mm (f4 or f2.8, leave it to you to decide)
4) 50mm as you already have it.
TC why don't u spend on a Tamron 17-50 mm f2.8 VC first and see what focal length u normally shoot on and decide on whether to change to 16-35 or 17-55.
Although it is a 3rd party lens but it is good enough for casual shooting.
Just my 2cents.
Cheers
Although it is a 3rd party lens but it is good enough for casual shooting.
Just my 2cents.
Cheers
:thumbsup::thumbsup: this is exactly my setup when I was on APS-C. Very versatile and the IQ these lenses deliver is good.
bring your camera down to the shop, shoot and see the IQ difference, easier for decision. see to believe with your own eyes.
on my cropped body, i tested a few of the L & finally after 1 test shot with the 17-55 f2.8, i went for it immediately. quite expensive for a non-L but this is what i am looking for, fast f2.8 with IS & USM. to me its a L. my 2c worth. cheers.
If you had to choose between the 16-35 and 17-40, do yourself a favour and get the 17-40. The 16-35 is just plain paper weight. The MK II was a redeem for them. This is coming from someone who owned 3 copies of the 16-35. Its bad.
Ts seriously, why consider those 2 lenses when your 50D can mount a 10-22 or a tokina 11-16 if you want the large aperture, unless you are going FF in the near future. Price wise 17-40 is the best bang for buck, unless you are filthy rich i dont see much of the point of the 16-35mm f2.8 when we shoot landscapes mainly @ f8
please save the money from buying a 24-70 on a APS-C camera.
it's practically useless because it's just not wide enough and not long enough.
get yourself something that covers from 17 to 50 odd mm. either EF-S 17-55 IS or Tamron 17-50 VC or Sigma 18-50 or the likes. you'll be happier with the wider angle and yet feel good enough on the longer side before switching to a tele.
it's practically useless because it's just not wide enough and not long enough.
get yourself something that covers from 17 to 50 odd mm. either EF-S 17-55 IS or Tamron 17-50 VC or Sigma 18-50 or the likes. you'll be happier with the wider angle and yet feel good enough on the longer side before switching to a tele.
yeah, i understand what u mean by not wide enough and not long enough. i also feel that way, but that's just us. some people happen to shoot 24-70mm a lot. they dun crave the wideness or tele-ness. they want sth between 24mm and 70mm. anyway i've seen a lot of uncles during the CNY period at chinatown using 7D/50D with a 24-70...and i believe they are old-timers.
i know of people who are perfectly comfortable with their 10-22, 24-70, 70-200 set up on an aps-c. we all have different shooting styles, shoot different things, react differently to situations. there's no right or wrong in terms of customizing one's kit. besides it makes moving to FF so much easier in future.
Hi Besandy,
Trust me any lenses can be a paper weight because obviously they are heavier than paper just kidding...
I personally think that the weight is not much of an issue. We are not talking about more than 1kg here. Just to give you an idea. The 16-35 Mark II is 640g vs the 17-40L which is 475g, the difference is about 165g (equivalent to an iPhone weight). Come on what is 165g? If you are a lady perhaps I could understand but if you are a guy, the diff of 165g is insignificant. If you think it is too heavy still, then go buy the 17-40L. But if you really want "quality" optics, then I would recommend you the 16-35 between the 2 lenses. For quality, you have to pay more of course.
Trust me any lenses can be a paper weight because obviously they are heavier than paper
just kidding...I personally think that the weight is not much of an issue. We are not talking about more than 1kg here. Just to give you an idea. The 16-35 Mark II is 640g vs the 17-40L which is 475g, the difference is about 165g (equivalent to an iPhone weight). Come on what is 165g? If you are a lady perhaps I could understand but if you are a guy, the diff of 165g is insignificant. If you think it is too heavy still, then go buy the 17-40L. But if you really want "quality" optics, then I would recommend you the 16-35 between the 2 lenses. For quality, you have to pay more of course.
Similar threads
