Canon users I need lens advice

[gez]

I've stepped up, 20D to 5D, and want to replace my EFS 10-22. Does anyone have experience with either or both the EF 16-35-2.8 or the 17-40-f4? Sharpness is my concern. I've heard and read alot of positive on the 17-40 not much on the 16-35. $$$ is not the issue. I went to the camera shop today to buy the 17-40, they were out of stock. A customer there said he had one (17-40) and sold it as he was not happy with it, 16-35 was the way to go. Any personal experience would be helpfull. Thanks

[William Allen]

I don't own the 17-40, but, I've heard lots of good things about it. My friends that shoot the full frame canons love it. But again I've not had personal experience.

Are you looking to sell the 10-22mm? :)

[ExpertNovice]

You do not want my advice, but I will give you advice anyway. ;)

An aquaintence of mine, http://www.killerphotos.com/index.html did the photographs of my daughter's wedding. I was asking him advice about two cameras. The Nikon 200 and Canon 5D. He said both appeared to be excellent cameras and made suggestions about both.

The reason I asked him for advice, other than my respect for him, is the same reason I ask the frequenters of this forum questions. He gives unbiased (as much as anyone can be) advice. FYI, at the time of our correspondence he uses the Canon 1D and uses the 5D as his backup.

When I asked him about the EF 16-35-2.8 part his response was:
if I'm shooting personal work with the 5D, I'll only use fixed lenses. My favorites are the 50 1.4 and 35 1.4. For a super wide, I use a Zeiss 21 2.8 with a Canon adapter.

Hope this helps.

[Carbone]

I too don't like zooms too much and having a super great camera like yours, I'd make sure to get a sharp prime lense instead of a zoom.

Ray

[gez]

Thanks for the responses.

While primes may produce a slightly better photo, it's a BIG investment to cover the focal range of a zoom. So for now I'm ordering the 16-35 f2.8L. I have the 50-1.4, 50-f2.5 macro and the 24-70-f2.8L. That should cover my lower end for now. I want to shoot residential interiors.

William, the 20D and 10-22 are spoken for. BTW, I've enjoyed the portraits in your gallery. Nice work. Is this a hobby for you, or are you a pro?

[Codebreaker]

Some Lens reviews here that may help.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Colin

[William Allen]

William, the 20D and 10-22 are spoken for. BTW, I've enjoyed the portraits in your gallery. Nice work. Is this a hobby for you, or are you a pro?

Thanks for the compliment. This is a hobby for me. Although I spend almost all of my spare time doing it :)

I do plan on getting the 10-22mm sometime soon. That's a fantastic lens!!

[Grant]

Sharpness is my concern.



George fear not as both lenses are extremely sharp and if one is sharper than the other it will appear most when you shoot lens test targets, if you are into those things. Most lenses are usually very good but work best in the mid rang. I suspect that if you shoot with either lens at the same focal length at say f8 you will have a very hard time to tell the images apart.

The big difference between these two is what these lenses are intended for. The EF 16-35 2.8 struts its stuff when the lights go down. it is an excellent lens in tight situations with low lighting conditions. One can easily understand why it is a favorite of photojournalist. The 17-40 f4 is lighter and cheaper but still an excellent piece of glass. For the landscape and architectural, tourists photographer this is one sweet lens. It is both lighter in cost and easier on the back than its bigger brother. The Question is how are you going to use this lens.

When people give you advice like the fellow in the photoshop you would be wise to know what they shoot, how they shoot and see the images they shoot before you follow their advice.

[gez]

Grant
Thank You

Still up in the air, several have cautioned the 16-35 seriously vignettes(?spelling) on a full frame. I have yet to test my 24-70 f2.8 on the 5D to see how well it performs. I've been told primes are the way to go with a full frame. Looking at the 14mm (ouch).

[Grant]

George

Yup it will vignette if you use filters or a lens hood improperly. The EF 16-35 2.8 is one of those lenses that may be considered a bench mark in fine optics.

I don't have a 24-70 f2.8 but I do have a 35 - 70 f2.8 and for my money it is a silly lens. That is not to say the lens is bad it is in fact very good it is just that the lens is in an area where it is just as convenient to zoom with my feet.

Almost everyone I know is all mixed up to zooms vs fixed lens dilemma. When we have excellent Zooms we want to chuck them in for fixed lenses when we have our dream fix lens packet we want to get zooms. I have the luxury of both. Three f2.8 zooms covering the rang from 17 mm to 200 mm. I also have 24 mm f2.8, 35 mm f2.0, 50 mm f1.4, 50 mm f1.8 and an 85 mm f1.8 fixed focal length lenses. I find no difference, or very little difference, in the quality of images that come from zooms or fixed lenses. I do prefer my fixed lenses but it has more to do with the way I shoot and not with the quality of the lenses.

If you have particular concerns over zoom vs fixed just ask and i will tell you my finding but be aware they may only apply to my style of shooting.

I also have a 105 f2.8 macro but that is a special lenses.

_