canon 17-40 vs 16-35 f/4
Jan 28, 2017 15:20:20 #
I recently acquired a canon 5d mk II with a tamron 17-35mm lens. I'm just a hobbyist who loves to photograph nature, and landscape including
flowers etc. I've used this lens many times in shooting the above, the results are often good, not great. i'm not a professional, but, i recognize
very good results from experience. I do not think this lens together with the 5d II will produce the result i'm shooting for. I'm looking at the canon
17-40-and 16-35mm. I've read your articles, and your answers to questions are satisfying. any recommendation will be welcome.
flowers etc. I've used this lens many times in shooting the above, the results are often good, not great. i'm not a professional, but, i recognize
very good results from experience. I do not think this lens together with the 5d II will produce the result i'm shooting for. I'm looking at the canon
17-40-and 16-35mm. I've read your articles, and your answers to questions are satisfying. any recommendation will be welcome.
Jan 28, 2017 15:46:58 #
The 16-35 (which I have) is a better (and more expensive) lens. You can search on technical reviews for both.
Jan 28, 2017 16:18:16 #
Opinions will differ, but I found the 17-40 to be an excellent lens. You can find copies used at relatively decent prices when compared to other lenses. The 16-35 f/4 IS is superior, both in sharpness and providing IS. It's a lot more expensive, even where you can find a used copy. I've used the 17-40 both as a walkaround and off a tripod, indoors and in low(ish) light. With the IS, I no longer bother with a tripod when using the 16-35.
Jan 28, 2017 20:59:15 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Opinions will differ, but I found the 17-40 to be an excellent lens. You can find copies used at relatively decent prices when compared to other lenses. The 16-35 f/4 IS is superior, both in sharpness and providing IS. It's a lot more expensive, even where you can find a used copy. I've used the 17-40 both as a walkaround and off a tripod, indoors and in low(ish) light. With the IS, I no longer bother with a tripod when using the 16-35.
👍👍 My experience also.
Jan 28, 2017 23:38:36 #
thanks for your quick and smart response, i did my reviews on both lenses, and understand both lens to be very good with the exception of the 16-35 f/4
which is better in low light, and a bit sharper. one thing i learned is to go with 17-40; and if necessary, step up. thanks to you both.
which is better in low light, and a bit sharper. one thing i learned is to go with 17-40; and if necessary, step up. thanks to you both.
Jan 29, 2017 13:55:51 #
pinkkie wrote:
I recently acquired a canon 5d mk II with a tamron... (show quote)
All Canon purchases should be tempered with information you can learn here - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ . Bryan is the master of comparing all things related to Canon.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.