Canon 16-35 vs Canon 17-40...is 1mm difference on wide too big?

[payal_choksi]

Hi all,

i want to ask, is the difference of 1 mm in terms of video between canon 16-35 vs 17-40 on the wide end very big on full frame camera? i know 16-35 is flagship product of canon, but i want to know in terms of distortion and the area it covers.

regards,

payal

 

[thekreative]

16 and 17 is very wide. I have the 17-35 and at 17 its too wide to pan, crazy distortion. It is ok for wide landscapes but too wide for my liking. I'm a 24mm max. I only use the lens for photos at 17 and on a steadicam for 24-35 because its light for a zoom. I don't think there will be much of a difference between the 1mm.

 

[Jordan_S]

The 16mm will be 108 degrees and the 17mm is 104 degrees. That should not be the deciding factor.

I can think of 860 others that begin with $.

I bought the 17-40 used. It's lighter, shorter, cheaper, got comparable IQ, and is a whole lot less expensive than the 16-35. The only reason to get the 16-35 is for its max aperture of 2.8.

 

[Samuel H]

to me, all that matters here is: the 16-35 is sharper and faster, but the 17-40 is cheaper

check reviews to see how much that difference is
I would go to photozone.de, the-digital-picture (including their great ISO chart comparison tool), and the lensrentals blog if they ever tested both with imatest (that's the best source for sharpness info because they test multiple copies: it makes a difference!!)

 

[payal_choksi]

so i guess the difference of 1 mm is not very big. also i was wondering who shoots at f2.8 wide? the dof is so shallow. when taking a video of something in wide, it's natural that everything should be in focus, hence the dof should be deep, for which the lens should be stoped atleast to 5.6 which can be achieved by 17-40 also. just my way of thinking.

 

[Samuel H]

you can definitely get shallow DoF at 16mm, and somethimes you will want to do so
(in this case, a tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 set at 16mm on a 5D2)

more here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/alhambra/alhambra.html

 

[Liam Hall]

I have the 16-35mm. It is superior in every way to the 17-40mm, except price.

 

[Bassman2003]

so i guess the difference of 1 mm is not very big. also i was wondering who shoots at f2.8 wide? the dof is so shallow. when taking a video of something in wide, it's natural that everything should be in focus, hence the dof should be deep, for which the lens should be stoped atleast to 5.6 which can be achieved by 17-40 also. just my way of thinking.

You have to think from a still shooter's perspective - lowest ISO is best. f2.8 might allow you to get that shot where f4 might be a little noisy. This stems a lot more from the "olden days" when cameras were not as clean as they are today.

One more thing - DOF has three components: Size of aperature, Distance to subject and Focal length. One could say that f2.8 would creat shallow DOF, but not always. A wide lens far away from a subject will have deep DOF even at f2.8 You need to get really close as shown above to get shallow DOF. But this is not what an ultra wide lens was mainly designed to do. You are usually back away from your subject with a wide lens or you will get a fisheye look due to distortion.

 

[Worzel Gummidge]

I found the 17-40mm suffers with bad CA as well.

 

[Jordan_S]

You have to think from a still shooter's perspective - lowest ISO is best.

This is incorrect. As with many other decisions in image-making, extremes are best left for extreme situations. And "sweet spots" vary from camera to camera.

I found the 17-40mm suffers with bad CA as well.

Correcting for CA and vignetting are automatic or practically so, and basically without penalties, unlike distortion correction.

...

With the ISOs available on today's DSLRs, a wide zoom that is one stop faster than another but more than double the price just doesn't make sense. Why not buy the f4 and use the savings for a really fast prime?

OK, so the 16-35 has 8 blades but how often do you blur the background at 28mm? Or even 35mm? A 70-200 f2.8, maybe. A wide zoom, no.

 

[Bassman2003]

This is incorrect. As with many other decisions in image-making, extremes are best left for extreme situations. And "sweet spots" vary from camera to camera.

This was in response to the OP question - "I was wondering who shoots at 2.8 wide open?" The answer is still shooters whom the lens was designed for. They want the lowest ISO possible even in difficult shooting situations.

 

[Jordan_S]

This was in response to the OP question - "I was wondering who shoots at 2.8 wide open?" The answer is still shooters whom the lens was designed for. They want the lowest ISO possible even in difficult shooting situations.

Who wants the "lowest ISO?" You keep saying "they want the lowest ISO" and "lowest ISO is best" and it's simply wrong.

The cleanest, unpulled, unpushed ISO is 100 on Canon DSLRs. However, for the cleanest image overall, you'd want ISO 160. It comes at the price of a slight loss of DR. Why is ISO 320 cleaner on a 7D than ISO 250? Because pulling is cleaner than pushing.

This is for Canon DSLRs. And there are slight deviations from model to model. Other cameras have their own relationships with ISOs.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

 

[Bassman2003]

I can't say what you are trying to make this out to be Jordan. I was just pointing out why the f2.8 lens is worth the extra money to still photographers compared to the f4 version. It is one stop faster and most likely has better optics. If you want to argue that higher ISO settings are more sought after by photographers compared to lower ISO settings go ahead. It is not in the ballpark of the conversation but that is your choice.

Lowest ISO Possible is what I wrote. What does that mean? Well if you are going to have to shoot in a certain difficult situation, an f2.8 lens will afford you the option to shoot at a lower ISO compared to an f4 lens. Rocket science? no. Reason for a dispute? can't see why...

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

I love the 17-40 for stills on the 5d3. F10 seems the sweet spot wide open even if you loose a slight bit of sharpness in the center.

 

[Jordan_S]

If you want to argue that higher ISO settings are more sought after by photographers compared to lower ISO settings go ahead.

You obviously failed to understand my post.

Lowest ISO Possible is what I wrote.

No. You wrote...

lowest ISO is best.

And my comment was that, no, it's much more nuanced than that.

In any case, if you choose to ignore these details, that's your choice. They most certainly do fall within the realm of this conversation about aperture and ISO. If it's easier for you to understand something like, "Lowest ISO is best," be my guest. You can also walk around saying, "Most expensive is best" and a lot of people will agree with you. But that doesn't make it so.

 

[Bassman2003]

Here is what I really wrote - "You have to think from a still shooter's perspective - lowest ISO is best. f2.8 might allow you to get that shot where f4 might be a little noisy. This stems a lot more from the "olden days" when cameras were not as clean as they are today."

If you want to single out the word "lowest" it takes it out of context. Lowest in the context of my sentence is not an absolute measurement but a reference. As in the lowest obtainable ISO for that situation. ie...Shooting a large group of people in a dimly lit church from a distance where you need all the flash power you can get.

If you want to make a storm in a teacup out of this I can't stop you... I have been doing photo and video a long time and I know every bit of what you are going on about.

BTW, my comments are coming at this from a still shooter's perspective. Your references lead me to belive you are approaching from the video shooter's perspective. In the photo world, people do not use the in-between ISOs like they are used in the video world. Everybody shoots RAW and aims for the lowest possible ISO for every shooting situation!

 

[Jordan_S]

Here is what I really wrote - "You have to think from a still shooter's perspective - lowest ISO is best. f2.8 might allow you to get that shot where f4 might be a little noisy. This stems a lot more from the "olden days" when cameras were not as clean as they are today."

If you want to single out the word "lowest" it takes it out of context. Lowest in the context of my sentence is not an absolute measurement but a reference. As in the lowest obtainable ISO for that situation. ie...Shooting a large group of people in a dimly lit church from a distance where you need all the flash power you can get.

Now you're writing what you may have thought but did not write. We can't read your mind, just your words.

Your last statement above really tells the whole story here. You're in a "dimly lit church from a distance where you need all the flash power you can get." Hello? Get your flash off your camera.

Next you'll write that I've taken what you said out of context and that what you really wrote was...

I have been doing photo and video a long time and I know every bit of what you are going on about.

Really? The incorrect statements you're making and the fact that you shoot with a flash on your camera speak otherwise.

Your references lead me to belive you are approaching from the video shooter's perspective. In the photo world, people do not use the in-between ISOs like they are used in the video world. Everybody shoots RAW and aims for the lowest possible ISO for every shooting situation!

Wrong again. I am primarily a stills shooter.

You are also incorrect with regard to shooting RAW. With Fujiflm cameras, it's often desirable to shoot jpegs and RAW or just jpegs. Not everyone is a Canon or Nikon shooter! I happen to shoot Canon and Fujifilm.

And another reason why your statement about ISO is incorrect is because with Fujifilm cameras, control of DR % depends on ISO choice.

Perhaps your knowledge is simply antiquated.

I'm not going to bother disputing your other sweeping generalizations; you can lead a horse to water...

 

[Bassman2003]

Dude, I am not drinking your water... What is this all about? What your going on about has nothing to do with this guy's thread.

Your flash comments just seal the deal that you are looking for conflict here. Who is writing sweeping generalizations now? Flash is a tool just like any other. And in that example, your are going to convince me that top down Zombie lighting will look better than adding fill flash? Seriously? You prefer eye socket shadows? Show me photo evidence. 2nd thought, don't. I really don't care to interact with you anymore. We have created enough forum fodder on this thread.

 

[Jordan_S]

Shooting a large group of people in a dimly lit church from a distance where you need all the flash power you can get.

in that example, your are going to convince me that top down Zombie lighting will look better than adding fill flash? Seriously? You prefer eye socket shadows? Show me photo evidence.

I see. You say it's for fill flash that you have the flash on the camera to shoot the "large group of people in a dimly lit church from a distance where you need all the flash power you can get."

:lipsrseal

 

[legrevedotcom]

The 16-35 II is ahead of the 17-35… no matter how you bend it. Don't understand how this thread turned into a discussion about iso noise and other b ullshit.
I would happily pay for the version II again than considering the 17-35. But as usual those who can't afford the better of two will find arguments for buying the less expensive lens.

In regards to iso, tests done more recently than the early ramblings about 160 / 320 / 640 vs the even numbers show that all though your noise may appear less, the signal to noise ratio is more or less the same… ie. no real benefit.

If you are shooting raw stills, then correctly exposing a low iso will yield the best result. That part is not up for debate… at all Jordan_S. And if you are in a dimly lit churc where people are being backlit by tall windows, a speedlite on the camera may work very well as a fill light. You don't have to make things more complicated than what actually works.