pdwoods11

Not a new topic for sure.....this question is general and is specific to the Canon 16 - 35mm L.

What is the value of a single full stop...not the math but in actual anecdotal use.
For this Canon lens, as it relates to $$; is a single f-stop worth $350.00. ?
I shoot with a 5D-mkII and have other Ls...2 macros, 3 zooms, no primes.
I would like the opinion of the hoggers before I plop down $1,200. vs $1,550. for the extra light.

Thank You,
David Woodruff

amehta Loc: Boston

For this focal length, especially at 16mm, I do not think the extra stop matters. This is reflected in the price difference being relatively small. Compare that to the difference between a 300mm f/4 and 300mm f/2.8. :-)

Flyerace Loc: Mt Pleasant, WI

Its very simple. If you want it and it cost more (and you can afford it), get it. The reason for this advice is simple, later you will question if you made the right decision. Possibly causing you to purchase the faster lens anyway. The faster the lens, generally, the better quality photo you might get. (your ability to compose the picture etc counts toward success) I have learned to never take second best when best is only a few hundred dollars more.

By the way, I am a Nikon user, and I have learned the difference "good glass" makes.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

It depends how much you need the extra stop for the type of photography you do. If you find yourself shooting wide open quite often, or raising the ISO higher than you might like, maybe it's worth it. If you shoot mostly stationary subjects on a tripod, probably not.

pdwoods11

Good advice consistent with my general buying philosophy.
I think I will buy both from B&H and just really see if I can see the difference....lol....just as you say if I buy the cheaper.....I will wonder.
I did this with the 100 & 200mm macro lens L glass. Returned the 200mm L after 45 days. Could see no difference between the two lens at 100mm of course. The 200mm is very heavy and was the main reason I returned it. Interestingly I also had an older Canon 100mm, probably 20 years old and leftover from the last of my film days, I compared this to my 2yr old 100mm L and could tell very little difference. The older 100mm, non-L, had a much better build quality and solid feel.
The older lens also had the noisy focus motor and would go into the "hunt mode" on close shots; but who uses AF on close shots anyway.
I bought a Kenko 1.4 teleconverter, $200. that I use with the old lens, I achieve a very acceptable IQ. Canon engineered the new 100mm L such that Canon's very own converters would not fit their 100mm. Causes one to ponder if there was a self-serving motive...say $$$.
Interestingly, the Kenko does fit Canon's other L zoom glass
and provides excellent results, IMHO, for $200.00, rather than dropping $1,400+ for an extra 120mm. (300mm x 1.4 = 420mm).
A philosophical dichotomy emerges vs my original question in this post.....time for a time out.....Hell, I may as well buy the
f-2.8 L and forget it.
Thank you for initiating this line of thought in my head.
Regards,
David Woodruff
p.s. the UHH does it again

amehta Loc: Boston

I know we're trained to expect greed, but I'm not sure the lens design which was motivated by profit, as the main result is a loss of revenue: people don't buy the new lens, or they buy the Kenko TC instead of the Canon one. I think both happen more often than people buy both the 100mm and 135mm lenses, and Canon might expect the same.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

Before you shoot, the camera focuses and displays an image with the lens wide open so one f/stop is valuable when trying to focus on a subject is in dimly lit conditions. Rarely would I shoot at maximum aperture unless there was no alternative.

pdwoods11

I was wondering too if the additional f-stop bought something other than additional photon capture.....like better overall IQ at the extremes of controllable settings. To accomplish this, I will purchase both L Lens and set up the comparisons to best of my knowledge & ability....both of which I admit is limited.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Many people get confused with 1 stop up or 1 stop down and 1 f/stop. A stop can be ISO, shutter speed or aperture. f/stop generally refers to aperture only. For an old hand this is easy. For a new person it is very confusing.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

David, just get one, and be glad you're not trying to decide between the Canon 200mm f2.8 and the f2.0! :lol:
SS

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Having the decision part would be fun. I wish I had 10-20 more lenses just because. I'm finding that I only use 3 99.95% of the time.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

That is a funny way to look at this - it is not just the fstop that costs more. Or put differently, lenses that have larger maximum openings are bigger and heavier, optically better in many respects, more versatile in low light, of a higher build quality anticipating the rugged use it may get, and generally the cost limits the type of customer than will buy it. Make no mistake, a 24-70 F2.8 zoom is a very sharp lens, and it would be hard to get similar quality images with an 18-55 F4-5.6, though when stopped down to F8, the latter is quite good. But it cannot shot at F2.8 ever, especially at the long end, where the max aperture is only 5.6.

pdwoods11

Thanks for the reply....I did not understand the last sentence particularly " cannot shot at f/2.8"

Thanks,
David

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

An 18-55 has a maximum aperture of F4 at 18mm and that shrinks to F5.6 at 55mm. So while you will get very good quality images at F8, one thing it cannot do that a more expensive lens can do is let you take images at F2.8, assuming that you have a lens like the 24-70 that is has a constant max aperture of F2.8 regardless of zoom level.

pdwoods11

Thanks much for taking the time to reply....I understand what you say....David