Which wide(r) angle L series?

6

621andy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
32
Edit My Images
No
Looking to replace my Sigma 17-70...

A 17-40 F4 L? Or should I go for the 16-35 F2.8 L? Maybe someone can recommend an alternative?

Currently using a 7D, but looking to trade up in the future to FF, so not really interested in EF-S lenses. My other lens is a 70-200 F4 L.

Not that bothered about losing the bit between 40-70 as I mostly shoot landscapy type stuff and aerial shots(balloons/aircraft etc), or about the extra low light possibilities of the 2.8, but sharpness is very important:love:

My 17-70 is a nice lens, but I'm really noticing the sharpness(lack of) now on the 7D, and always having to artificially sharpen in Elements is getting on my :schtum:

Is the 2.8 really twice as good?
 
I've used the 17-40, it was an excellent lens on FF, but not the other so couldn't comment. My only point would be, how often would you actually use the lens wide open if you're shooting landscape shots?
 
Hi Andy,

If budget is an issue consider the 17-35L and 16-35L mark I for your f/2.8's. 17-35L is sharper than the newer lenses towards the 35mm end of the zoom. The 16-35's are sharper than the 17-35 and the wide end.

On the 7D the f/2.8 will be useful - much more of a walkabout range and whanot.

But on FF you might find the lack of reach an issue and therefore the lens will probably only get use as a landscape lens - in that case the f/4 is fine! (35mm on FF is about the same as setting a lens to 21mm on your 7D)

I use the 17-35L because I've had it since new old stock. This is a shot with it @35 f/2.8 - the only sharpening was the ACR default settings - so how it came out of the RAW converter (obviously with the vibrance and contrast adjustments). So you can sharpen how you would one of your shots normally to judge sharpness.



http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/4146/s6o3375.jpg - 17-35, f/2.8, 35mm

I don't think there's any point in me upgrading TBH - but if your buying now I'd consider the newer lenses... If you want 17 f/2.8 samples then I'll dig some out for you...
 
I've not found the 17-40 wanting as far as image quality is concerned, either on my 5D or 1Dslll. It's big advantage is that it is almost half the price of the 16-35. The question that is do you need f2.8. I have only had the occasional situation where f2.8 could have been useful, but the limited DOF may have caused a problem. ( OK I know f4 doesn't give a great deal more, but it was better than f2.8 would have been)

At the end of the day it's your decision. If in doubt, try hiring both lenses for a couple of days and see which you prefer. OK it may cost you a few bob but it could end up saving you a lot more
 
Unless you intend to go Full frame don't write of the EF-S 10-22

I had one that gave admirable performance, crisp sharp and vibrant.

I went FF so had to change mine and I ended up with a 17-40L

Depends on how often you use it as well. I like the 17-40 on my FF camera because I like the funky effects it gives on verticals but I got the same on my 10-22.
 
I'm looking to purchase a UWA myself sometime soon too.

It would be a toss up between the 16-35 & the 17-40... However, as I'm on FF the 17-40 makes the most sense. I'm never going to need f/2.8 or even anything below f/8 for landscape shots so the 16-35 just isn't worth the cost to me, it'd just be nice to have.
 
I have the 16-35mm f2.8L which was used a lot when I had the 20D, however TBH fell into disuse when I purchased the 1Ds MkII FF camera as I found my 24-70mm f2.8L was wide enough & in around 4 yrs according to LR I used it about 15 times. I have since purchased a 50D also & the lens has come out of retirement again. As a lens it is cracking & with the new lens correction in LR3 & CS5 even better.

If you are serious about going up to a FF I would suggest you consider your options carefully as you may find the lens becomes redundant depending on your other lenses & perhaps a cheaper lens ie S/H version would help. I would say be careful when you go ff you will notice the difference in quality between the L-Series and the others & many lenses become almost unusable even though they say they are for FF cameras
 
@Hoppy Thanks for the link- just what I was looking for.
@JEmerson Hmm, didn't know these lenses existed...I'll investigate!

I DO intend going FF, but it won't be in the near future...the missus'll kill me:lol:

Thanks everyone, I'll do some thinking...Can't get anything until I'm back in civilisation anyway...
 
I was in your position, and bought the EF-S 17-55, because it's the best option to use with the 7D. When (if?) I eventually move/upgrade to FF, I know I will be able to sell it for a good price and then get what's best for my new camera.

I suppose it depends how long you plan on keeping the 7D...
 
On FF 24-70mm gets 95% use for landscapes in my case. Sometimes I go longer, sometimes I reuse my Tokina DX lens at 20mm which is more than wide enough. 17-40mm is a good length, but the wide side is really lacking even on a crop. Sharpness and barrel distortion are the key issues. Tokina 12-24mm f4 is perhaps as close to a great 19-24mm f/4 FF zoom as it gets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top