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

legrevedotcom said:
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.
Click to expand...

In RAW there is no benefit, in H264 there is a huge benefit.
 
legrevedotcom said:
The 16-35 II is ahead of the 17-35…
Click to expand...
17-40, not 17-35, a sizeable difference

legrevedotcom said:
no matter how you bend it. Don't understand how this thread turned into a discussion about iso noise and other b ulls*%t.
Click to expand...
There's a stop difference between the two lenses. Stops are about light. So is ISO. Get it?

legrevedotcom said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now I understand this whole argument. It's Lexus versus Toyota. It's about conspicuous consumption.

legrevedotcom said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again, this varies from model to model and among different camera manufacturers. The point is that you need to know your particular camera and how it behaves under different conditions. If you operate under sweeping generalizations you might as well stick it in auto mode.

This is why people should not be so quick to buy the latest models. They haven't even learned the camera they've had for 10 months before they buy the next one out. But I guess someone who writes
legrevedotcom said:
But as usual those who can't afford [...]
Click to expand...
is not someone who would risk trotting out last year's Canon.

legrevedotcom said:
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.
Click to expand...

You changed the wording, my friend, from "lowest" to "a low." Sneaky, that.

legrevedotcom said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was obvious he was making it up as he went along. And you're not going to get good fill from a distance like that, anyhow. Besides, no one had mentioned the height of a closer, off-cam light. He was just upset that someone was paying attention. And I'm not saying there isn't a time for on cam flash either but that ain't it.

Oh, and saying an issue is not strictly related to the original topic is a very weak and cowardly way of trying to escape criticism.
 
can the video quality of 17-40 be compared to 16-35 f2.8 at say f4? will there be difference in the rendering of colors between the two? here i am comparing 17-40 f4 with the 16-35 f2.8 version I
 
True. I would like to see the camera lock down on a tripod and record five seconds of footage with each lens without changing any settings :-) If anyone has both lenses that would be a great test!!!!
 
There is a 17-35 f/2.8L. It's about the same as the 16-35. I had the 20-35 2.8L for awhile. That was a fun lens.

Based on my tests with pretty much any lens that I've thrown on a Canon DSLR, the lens outresolves Canon video footage. Always. Saturation and contrast might be different, but I don't know. I've definitely seen color differences between different lens manufacturers but all of my Canon lenses basically have the same look due to what I would assume would be the same coatings on each lens.

Personally, I think the best wide angle lens for Canon video right now is the 16-35 f/4 IS due to the silent and hybrid IS built into the lens. It's also sharper than all of the other lenses mentioned for photography.
 
cpreston said:
There is a 17-35 f/2.8L. It's about the same as the 16-35. I had the 20-35 2.8L for awhile. That was a fun lens.

Based on my tests with pretty much any lens that I've thrown on a Canon DSLR, the lens outresolves Canon video footage. Always. Saturation and contrast might be different, but I don't know. I've definitely seen color differences between different lens manufacturers but all of my Canon lenses basically have the same look due to what I would assume would be the same coatings on each lens.

16-35 f4 is one of the best Canon lenses ever. You will be using it for years.

Personally, I think the best wide angle lens for Canon video right now is the 16-35 f/4 IS due to the silent and hybrid IS built into the lens. It's also sharper than all of the other lenses mentioned for photography.
Click to expand...

16-35 f4 is one of the best Canon lenses ever. You will be using it for years.
 
I would argue, based on my tests, that the sharpness of any modern lens is not going to have a noticeable effect at the low resolution of Canon's DSLR video.

In the case of Canon's wide angle zooms, however, the 16-35 2.8L has really bad corners. Version II is better, but it's still not sharp wide open. In fact, the 17-40 f/4L actually has better corners. The only WA Canon zoom that is truly decent is the new 16-35 f/4L IS. The easiest comparison can be seen here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=114&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I still want to stress, though, that I don't think any of this matters for video.
 
even though the difference between 16-35 and 17-40 is 1 mm on wider side...does 16mm have more distortion than 17mm? from the videos i saw on youtube....16mm wide seems to show more curved/stretched objects on corners...17mm has less curved/stretched objects
 
payal_choksi said:
even though the difference between 16-35 and 17-40 is 1 mm on wider side...does 16mm have more distortion than 17mm? from the videos i saw on youtube....16mm wide seems to show more curved/stretched objects on corners...17mm has less curved/stretched objects
Click to expand...

Distortion doesn't automatically happen when you go a millimeter wider. It's a function of lens design. It takes a lot of engineering to make a wide lens with a flat image, and it's even harder with zooms.
 
Michael Carter said:
Distortion doesn't automatically happen when you go a millimeter wider. It's a function of lens design. It takes a lot of engineering to make a wide lens with a flat image, and it's even harder with zooms.
Click to expand...

so am i right in saying that 16-35 @ 16mm has more distortion than 17mm in 17-40?
 
Based on this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...3&FLI=1&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=1
it would appear that the 16-35 f/4 IS and the 17-40 f/4 have about the same distortion. It certainly isn't as bad as the 24-105 at the wide end. That lens looks really bad at 24mm with straight lines. Of course, you might not be talking about actual lens distortion. You might mean the perspective distortion that occurs when shooting wide angle. In that case, it doesn't matter what lens you use because the perspective distortion increases the wider you shoot. The only way to compensate for that type of distortion is to get a tilt shift lens and shift the lens so that whatever side of the frame you are focusing on is using the center of the lens.
 
payal_choksi said:
even though the difference between 16-35 and 17-40 is 1 mm on wider side...does 16mm have more distortion than 17mm? from the videos i saw on youtube....16mm wide seems to show more curved/stretched objects on corners...17mm has less curved/stretched objects
Click to expand...

cpreston said:
Based on this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...3&FLI=1&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=1
it would appear that the 16-35 f/4 IS and the 17-40 f/4 have about the same distortion. It certainly isn't as bad as the 24-105 at the wide end. That lens looks really bad at 24mm with straight lines. Of course, you might not be talking about actual lens distortion. You might mean the perspective distortion that occurs when shooting wide angle. In that case, it doesn't matter what lens you use because the perspective distortion increases the wider you shoot. The only way to compensate for that type of distortion is to get a tilt shift lens and shift the lens so that whatever side of the frame you are focusing on is using the center of the lens.
Click to expand...

He's not asking about perspective distortion; he wants to know about barrel distortion.

"The 17-40 L has a bit less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 16-35mm L II has at 16mm but the 16-35 has less at 20mm. The 16-35 has slightly more pincushion distortion at 35mm."

source: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top