Canon wide-angle lenses - Real life situations please?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Garner, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. Mike Garner

    Mike Garner Guest

    I have a 10D with the ubiquitous 28-135 lens and am researching the
    best buys for a flexible wide(r) angle lens. The main reasons for the
    purchase are to cover an upcoming indoor event and to take more
    landscape shots in future.

    I have read several threads in the group and elsewhere regarding the
    choice between the EF17-40/F4 and the EF16-35/F2.8.

    Please can anyone give me examples (or, better still, pictures) of
    real life situations where the F2.8 is really worth almost double the
    price of the F4?

    With the forthcoming release of the EOS-1D MkII would it be foolish to
    go for the cheaper lens or better to save the money and get the Mk II
    sooner? ;-)

    Any other recommendations or observations would also be welcome.
     
    Mike Garner, Feb 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Garner

    Colm Guest

    This may interest you if you haven't already seen it.
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

    --
    Colm


    "Mike Garner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have a 10D with the ubiquitous 28-135 lens and am researching the
    > best buys for a flexible wide(r) angle lens. The main reasons for the
    > purchase are to cover an upcoming indoor event and to take more
    > landscape shots in future.
    >
    > I have read several threads in the group and elsewhere regarding the
    > choice between the EF17-40/F4 and the EF16-35/F2.8.
    >
    > Please can anyone give me examples (or, better still, pictures) of
    > real life situations where the F2.8 is really worth almost double the
    > price of the F4?
     
    Colm, Feb 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike Garner

    Frank Weston Guest

    For an indoor event, low light capability is probably the most important
    attribute of a lens. For landscape shots, get a tripod and stitch together
    those wide frames. Even a telephoto lens will do, and sometimes will do a
    lot better.

    If you really want to save bucks, why not consider the 20mm f/2.8? It can
    be had used for less than $300, it's light, much more easy to handle, and
    has better performance at 20mm than either the 16-35 or the 17-40.


    "Mike Garner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have a 10D with the ubiquitous 28-135 lens and am researching the
    > best buys for a flexible wide(r) angle lens. The main reasons for the
    > purchase are to cover an upcoming indoor event and to take more
    > landscape shots in future.
    >
    > I have read several threads in the group and elsewhere regarding the
    > choice between the EF17-40/F4 and the EF16-35/F2.8.
    >
    > Please can anyone give me examples (or, better still, pictures) of
    > real life situations where the F2.8 is really worth almost double the
    > price of the F4?
    >
    > With the forthcoming release of the EOS-1D MkII would it be foolish to
    > go for the cheaper lens or better to save the money and get the Mk II
    > sooner? ;-)
    >
    > Any other recommendations or observations would also be welcome.
     
    Frank Weston, Feb 6, 2004
    #3
  4. Mike Garner

    RustY © Guest

    "Mike Garner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Please can anyone give me examples (or, better still, pictures) of
    > real life situations where the F2.8 is really worth almost double the
    > price of the F4?



    When taking pics of aircraft, shooting at 2.8 will cut down the depth of
    field, throwing the background out of focus and giving quite a startling
    'sharp' effect for the main image. You can also keep shooting until it goes
    twice as dark but you knew that already.
    --
    For Welsh Military Flying visit .......
    www.groups.yahoo.com/group/V-A-S/
     
    RustY ©, Feb 6, 2004
    #4
  5. I've got the 20-35 and have been quite pleased with it. But as soon
    as I can scrape up some bucks I'll probably trade it in on the
    17-40...just to get some "L" glass.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 6, 2004
    #5
  6. Mike Garner

    DHB Guest

    Mike Garner,
    opinion of a relative newbie to DSLR but with
    experience of 25+ years with SLRs & 3+ years in digital photography:

    <1> Buy what you "need" rather than what you "want".

    <2> Make the most informed decision you can at the time considering
    "your expected needs" for the next year or so. Decide & don't second guess
    your choice after it's been made. The reason for this is simple, there is
    always going to be something better announced "after" you make your
    selection & if you dwell on that, you will always be unhappy with what you
    have.

    <3> Impulse purchase control! A good friend of mine helped me past
    this issue with good advice. He told me that whenever he feels draw to make
    any significant purchase, he researches the choice & then waits 2 weeks & if
    he still feels as strongly about it, then he acts from an informed position.

    In direct response to your questions, it sounds like the EF17-40/F4 is
    the better choice for you IF you "need" 1 or the other. Since you seem very
    interested in the EOS-1D MkII, I would strongly consider conserving your
    funds toward that future purchase. Also digital noise with future sensors
    will be dropping considerably as the sensor technology improves further as
    will the camera's firmware & post processing software designed to minimize
    digital noise caused by high ISO settings.

    There are already very good quality noise reduction software & DSLR
    sensors are already fairly low noise at ISO 400 & even 800 if needed.
    Combine this with noise reduction software & you may have little need to
    spend more for the faster lens. If you "need" to by 1 of these lenses, I
    would strongly suggest that you buy the EF17-40/F4 & bank the saved $600+
    toward the EOS-1D MkII for when it comes out.

    Just my long winded 2 cents but I hope it's of some value.

    Respectfully, DHB

    PS If it helps, I have been considering either a Canon EF 85mm f1.8 or
    100mm f2.0 for some time now but for the same reasons I have given you I
    have yet to purchase either lens. I presently have the following DSLR &
    lenses:

    Canon Digital Rebel/300D.
    Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II lens.
    Canon EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.
    Canon EF 55-200mm F4.5-5.6 II USM lens.
    Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens.
    Vivitar 500mm f8 mirror lens. (Fun inexpensive toy).

    Since I like the telephoto side of photography I most often find myself
    using ether my EF 50mm f1.8 II or my EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lenses
    which due to the 1.6x FOV crop factor of my DSLR acts like an 80mm &
    44.8-216mm lens respectively. Unfortunately no "L" glass in my near future
    plans until I feel I have outgrown what I have & can justify & save for
    something better!

    "Mike Garner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have a 10D with the ubiquitous 28-135 lens and am researching the
    > best buys for a flexible wide(r) angle lens. The main reasons for the
    > purchase are to cover an upcoming indoor event and to take more
    > landscape shots in future.
    >
    > I have read several threads in the group and elsewhere regarding the
    > choice between the EF17-40/F4 and the EF16-35/F2.8.
    >
    > Please can anyone give me examples (or, better still, pictures) of
    > real life situations where the F2.8 is really worth almost double the
    > price of the F4?
    >
    > With the forthcoming release of the EOS-1D MkII would it be foolish to
    > go for the cheaper lens or better to save the money and get the Mk II
    > sooner? ;-)
    >
    > Any other recommendations or observations would also be welcome.
     
    DHB, Feb 6, 2004
    #6
  7. Mike Garner

    Mike Garner Guest

    Thanks to all who replied. Every follow-up was very useful and
    informative.

    I'm going away to think about it now!

    Regards,
    Mike
     
    Mike Garner, Feb 7, 2004
    #7
  8. Mike Garner

    Johnny Guest

    > With the forthcoming release of the EOS-1D MkII would it be foolish to
    > go for the cheaper lens or better to save the money and get the Mk II
    > sooner? ;-)


    Do you *need* the added features of the Mk II, or do you just want a new
    camera. If you actually *need* (or could greatly benefit from) the new
    features, then consider saving for the camera. Otherwise, if your
    current camera body is meeting all of your needs, then get a lense.
     
    Johnny, Feb 7, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Shepherd

    Decent telephoto & wide angle lenses for Canon A80?

    Peter Shepherd, Apr 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,436
    Dave Martindale
    Apr 22, 2004
  2. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    767
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  3. ji

    Canon wide angle lenses

    ji, Apr 7, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    442
    Stephen M. Dunn
    Apr 9, 2006
  4. Dauphin de Viennois

    Re: DSLR lenses not good wide open at wide angle?

    Dauphin de Viennois, Jul 16, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    555
    Roy Smith
    Jul 16, 2008
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    389
    Mark Thomas
    Feb 15, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page