|
f/2.8 or f/4 ???
|
so, i’ve been looking at getting some new lenses. i will be headed to asia here in the next few months for a couple of years, and was wondering if it is worth the extra $600 to go ahead and get the faster lenses, the f/2.8? Specifically, I’ve been checking out the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L or the EF 17-40mm f/4L? What are your thoughts on the two lenses and advantages of the 2.8 that a college grad just couldn’t live without and would be worth the extra $?
by
Corey Sosebee
at
Sun May 07 08:58:27 UTC 2006
(ed. Mar 12 2008)
virginia,
United States
| Bookmark this
| Digg this
|
|
|
Hi Corey, my humble opinion is to go with the 17-40mm unless you plan to shoot sports there (then again, I doubt you would use 40mm max lens for that unless you are riding the horse… :-) ) For regular photography that extra F stop is not worth the money. Mind you it has its worthy uses but if you are in a pinch, save your bucks.
L
|
i use 16/35 canon 2.8 for me it s the best lense for news and for the digital i am very happy with it and have never bad surprise stéph
|
The 17-40 is a great lens. Most of my pictures are shot at f5.6-f8 or more, and since going digital, it’s easy to bump up to iso800 for an extra stop. Just my 2 cents…
|
I don’t know these lenses specifically, but I think it’s a question of HOW you shoot. I cherish every stop, and have thrown my head back in anguish many a time when I am already shooting wide open and am losing the light and I just can’t hold still enough at 1/8 of a second. But I always shoot as open as possible, it’s just my preference…
|
For me it depends on the kind of subject matter that you photograph. I’m often in very dark situations where one extra stop makes a difference in a sharp image or not – mostly due to subject motion. I do a lot of work that is ISO800 f/2 @ 1/4sec. Thus none of my lenses are greater than F2.8 and I have 3 that are f/1.4. But if you tend to be a sunny day shooter then the f/4 makes sense.
I’d say that 80% of my work is shot f/2.8 or wider, 19% f/8 and the rest @ f/22. I basically only use 3 aperture settings: wide open, f/8 and stopped all the way down.
|
For me it depends on the kind of subject matter that you photograph. I’m often in very dark situations where one extra stop makes a difference in a sharp image or not – mostly due to subject motion. I do a lot of work that is ISO800 f/2 @ 1/4sec. Thus none of my lenses are greater than F2.8 and I have 3 that are f/1.4. But if you tend to be a sunny day shooter then the f/4 makes sense.
I’d say that 80% of my work is shot f/2.8 or wider, 19% f/8 and the rest @ f/22. I basically only use 3 aperture settings: wide open, f/8 and stopped all the way down.
|
totally the 2.8…....i had the 17-40 first and the 16-35 and it is for sure worth the extra money. i think the glass is better as well…a far superior lens.
|
I had the privilege of time with Philip Jones Griffiths at WorkShopAsia in February; he reflected that there’s a prevailing opinion that the 17-40 4.0 if kinder on full frame digital bodies (ie 5D, etc) than the 16-35 2.8. I have not made a comparison. I am very happy with my 17-40 that was as much as I could afford when I first made the step to digital.
I’m currently very happy with a couple of adapter rings that allow me to use my Nikon F fixed lenses on my Canon 5D. Nikon F lenses are remarkably affordable condidering the quality of the glass. For the $180 I spent on decent adapters, I have access to lenses that would have cost me $1500 (plus another load for the filters).
|
I’m currently very happy with a couple of adapter rings that allow me to use my Nikon F fixed lenses on my Canon 5D. Nikon F lenses are remarkably affordable condidering the quality of the glass. For the $180 I spent on decent adapters, I have access to lenses that would have cost me $1500 (plus another load for the filters).That’s very interesting, James. Can you share a list of those F lenses and the adapters you are using? Anything that can save me a buck on good lenses… :-)
|
I had the privilege of time with Philip Jones Griffiths at WorkShopAsia in February; he reflected that there’s a prevailing opinion that the 17-40 4.0 if kinder on full frame digital bodies (ie 5D, etc) than the 16-35 2.8. I have not made a comparison. I am very happy with my 17-40 that was as much as I could afford when I first made the step to digital.
I’m currently very happy with a couple of adapter rings that allow me to use my Nikon F fixed lenses on my Canon 5D. Nikon F lenses are remarkably affordable condidering the quality of the glass. For the $180 I spent on decent adapters, I have access to lenses that would have cost me $1500 (plus another load for the filters).
|
To tell the truth I think f2.8 is too slow. I wish Canon could come up with an f2.0 16-35. Ofcourse I wouldn’t want it any bigger than the 2.8. Don’t mind me, I’m just dreaming. Altho I have the 16-35, I’m happiest with the 24 f1.4, 35mm f1.4 and the 85 f1.2. But maybe it’s just me.
|
Hi Luis, There are cheaper adpaters available for as little as $25. The view finder on the 20D is not conducive to manual focusing, so I’m grateful for the bigger view finder on the 5D.
Nikon-EOS adapter on ebay link
Nikon AIS lenses:
85mm f2
50mm f1.4
28mm f2.8
20mm f2.8
I paid $100-150 for each- external signs of use but with clean glass.
Aperture priority works, as does manual, ofcourse. Manual focus.
I’d like to add a fast 35mm lens to the kit and tote a trusty FM2 with a few rolls of film.
You should be able to find somewhere to try the gear before you buy. I hope it works for you and saves some $$$s. Cheers, J
|
Hi Luis, There are cheaper adpaters available for as little as $25. The view finder on the 20D is not conducive to manual focusing, so I’m grateful for the bigger view finder on the 5D.
Nikon-EOS adapter on ebay link
Nikon AIS lenses:
85mm f2
50mm f1.4
28mm f2.8
20mm f2.8
I paid $100-150 for each- external signs of use but with clean glass.
Aperture priority works, as does manual, ofcourse. Manual focus.
I’d like to add a fast 35mm lens to the kit and tote a trusty FM2 with a few rolls of film.
You should be able to find somewhere to try the gear before you buy. I hope it works for you and saves some $$$s. Cheers, J
|
Thanks, James. I’ll check that out.
Luis
|
Most important is when you are real close with the 17-40/4…try a controlled blast from the 580EX.
|
well..f4, 800 ISO and noise ninja work well for me!
|
I chose 17-40. 16-35 is a great lens, but not sharp enough. cheers, misha
|
|
Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
|
 via RSS
Recommended
|
 via email
You can unsubscribe later.
|
|
|
|
