Is it worth the compromise?

Derek W · 18 Apr 2014 at 20:30

Ever since i rented the Canon 16 - 35mm f2.8 a few years ago when i was in Vegas, I've always wanted to add that lens to my collection. At a shade over £1k its hardly cheap and an alternative is obviously the Canon 17 - 40 mm f4. With Canon doing £60cash back on this lens it can be had for £519 (579 - 60). Typically I'd be using it for landscapes but I'm sure I'd use it occasionally indoors.

Arguments for or against going for the 17 - 40 mm please

Hyburnate · 18 Apr 2014 at 20:35

Well the extra £500 is because of the f/2.8 so decide if you want that or not

Derek W · 18 Apr 2014 at 20:47

Hyburnate said:
Well the extra £500 is because of the f/2.8 so decide if you want that or not

I realise that as i have some f2.8 lenses already

D.P. · 18 Apr 2014 at 21:09

Are you on crop or FF?
If on crop then there are lots of alternatives, Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 cover that kind of range and offer extra reach and/or faster aperture.

If on FF then it depends what you shoot. For landscapes the 17-40mm is fine, you are stopped down on a tripod anyway so sharpness wide open is less critical and you don't need f/2.8.

PU7E · 18 Apr 2014 at 21:09

Question you have to ask yourself is do you shoot enough in low light and at night to justify the larger aperture and increased cost.

Derek W · 18 Apr 2014 at 21:37

D.P. I'm on a 5D2

Pu7e anytime i shoot in low light it tends to be for long exposure shots so f2.8 wont matter too much. I've only done one 'gig' photo shoot and for that i was using my 24 - 70 f2.8

Columbo · 19 Apr 2014 at 08:33

Get the best of both worlds with a Tokina 16-28mm f2.8

.

Vertigo · 19 Apr 2014 at 11:33

With equivalent (or roughly equivalent) lenses of f/2.8 and f/4 max aperture, there's often a very large disparity in price. Sometimes the lenses are pretty much equivalent in terms of quality and you're basically paying for the extra stop alone (think 70-200 f/4 IS vs 70-200 f/2.8 IS II) but other times the f/2.8 is noticably better quality so you're getting more than just an extra stop (think 300 f/2.8 IS vs 300 f/4 IS).

Whilst I think the 16-35 II is generally better quality than the 17-40, it won't be by much and you will be basically paying for the extra stop. Whilst that stop can be very useful or even essential, personally I don't see the point in a wide angle lens and would save the pennies. With the difference in price you could get a Sigma 35mm f/1.4.