Lens temptation

Derek W

Derek W

Derek W

Soldato
Joined
1 Oct 2008
Posts
12,965
Location
Designing Buildings
I've got the itch again and although i promised myself that I wouldn't be buying anything in the foreseeable future theres a couple of things that have taken my eye.

I've seen for sale a second hand 16 - 35 f2.8 L USM mk1 and a 17 - 40 f4 L USM and I've been looking to replace my aging 28 - 105 mm f3.5-4.5 as there is a mark on the inside of one of the front elements despite the fact that its not really noticeable on the photographs that I've taken.

Basically its for taking landscape photos although I think it could be doubled up for some indoor low light situations and I'm unsure on which would be the better choice. Any advice?
 
If you want indoor low light then I'd go for the 16-35 as I don't consider the 17-40 fast enough. If it's just for landscapes then it's a tougher decision!
 
Rojin said:
If you want indoor low light then I'd go for the 16-35 as I don't consider the 17-40 fast enough. If it's just for landscapes then it's a tougher decision!
Click to expand...

I'd be leaning more towards the landscape aspect of photography as at the moment i don't have much call for indoor low light stuff. Think i've done 3 to date and managed to use my flash for two of those times.
 
If I was still on a 1.6 crop I'd get the Tokina 11-16 without hesitation, it can be used on full frame but obviously not at it's widest. The Canon 10-22 can be modified to fit the 1D3 (1.3x) I think there are still issues with the 5DII though, nothing major just the back of the lens hitting the mirror at wider focal lengths :D

What about the Sigma 12-24? That's what I think I'll eventually be getting for landscape use.
 
Rojin said:
If I was still on a 1.6 crop I'd get the Tokina 11-16 without hesitation, it can be used on full frame but obviously not at it's widest. The Canon 10-22 can be modified to fit the 1D3 (1.3x) I think there are still issues with the 5DII though, nothing major just the back of the lens hitting the mirror at wider focal lengths :D

What about the Sigma 12-24? That's what I think I'll eventually be getting for landscape use.
Click to expand...

He is in full frame so I reckon 16/17mm is gonna be plenty wide enough for landscape needs.

Derek It really comes down to whether you need those extra f stops both lens are super capable. If you don't need f2.8 then its a big money saving getting the 17-40. Although I am unsure what the mk1 16-35 is going for a present but the mk2 is almost double the 17-40.
 
ichabod crane said:
He is in full frame so I reckon 16/17mm is gonna be plenty wide enough for landscape needs.

Derek It really comes down to whether you need those extra f stops both lens are super capable. If you don't need f2.8 then its a big money saving getting the 17-40. Although I am unsure what the mk1 16-35 is going for a present but the mk2 is almost double the 17-40.
Click to expand...

I've seen the 16 - 35 f2.8 L USM mk1 for £669, and the 17 - 40 f4 L USM for £474 second hand so there isn't really too much between them. The extra 1mm at the lower end doesn't really worry and neither does the extra 5 at the high end. I think really it will come down to whether i can justify the extra stops.

As mentioned the lens will mainly be used outdoors and more than likely stopped down rather than wide open. Its just when the situation arises for indoors the extra stops may be beneficial rather than choosing the higher iso setting on the 5D2 although I've shot comfortably in the evening at 3200 with little artifacts detracting from the image shot. :)

EDIT:

Just noticed the 16 - 35 has been sold. No doubt the lens will appear again though.
 
Last edited:
How much was the 16-35 II you were looking at Derek?
I've a work colleague looking to sell his one through lack of use.
 
ichabod crane said:
He is in full frame so I reckon 16/17mm is gonna be plenty wide enough for landscape needs.

Derek It really comes down to whether you need those extra f stops both lens are super capable. If you don't need f2.8 then its a big money saving getting the 17-40. Although I am unsure what the mk1 16-35 is going for a present but the mk2 is almost double the 17-40.
Click to expand...

You can never go too wide :D
 
Gaffer said:
Are you not tempted by a TS-E for landscape?

Andrew
Click to expand...

not really thought about a tilt shift lens before. I think its maybe a little too specialised as i mentioned earlier this lens will probably replace my 28 - 105 lens that strictly speaking is my 'walkabout lens' Will have a look though and see whats out there.

Oxygen said:
How much was the 16-35 II you were looking at Derek?
I've a work colleague looking to sell his one through lack of use.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at the mark 2 of the 16 - 35 only the mark 1 second hand and it was £669. Think it was greedy123 that mentioned the mark 2 ;)

Rojin said:
You can never go too wide :D
Click to expand...

When it comes to women I'd have to disagree with the above statement :D
 
Mark ii commands nearer £900 for a mint secondhand one. Mark 1 is much more reasonable, I paid way less than £669 for mine about 14 months ago. I think £669 is a bit too much for mk1.
 
having a bit of a rethink here. Although i am wanting to upgrade my lower end lens to something better with the new football season approaching I'm tempted to go for the 70 - 200 IS USM f2.8 as it will help for over the winter period. I have seen the mk 1 available new.

I'd be looking to sell both my 450D and 70 - 300 IS USM f4 - 5.6 to partially fund it. Would 650 - 700 for the pair seem reasonable enough?
 
Is there any warranty? 450D seems to be going for £250-300, the lens for up to £300 on TP. (There's a few versions of this lens though?)
 
camera bought dec 2008, lens the following april i think. under 5000 actuations for the camera. The 450D would include the kit lens as well though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom