fbpixel

Moderators: E.J. Peiker, Greg Downing

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 11 posts | 
by Paul Fusco on Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:23 am
Paul Fusco
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4305
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Location: CT
Anyone have comparative experience with Canon's wide zooms? 

Of interest are:
16-35/2.8 II
16-35/2.8 III
16-35/4
17-40/4

Thanks for your input!

Paul
Paul J. Fusco
NSN 0120


NSN Portfolio
http://www.naturescapes.net/portfolios/ ... ?cat=10317
 

by Ed Cordes on Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:10 pm
User avatar
Ed Cordes
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3502
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Location: Corning, NY
Member #:00700
Early in my digital experience, about 2004 or 2005,  I obtained the 17-40 F/4 L and liked it a lot.  It did have a bit more distortion than I wanted, but it filled the need I had.  About 2 years ago I bought the 16-35 F/4 L and absolutely love it. It is super sharp & minimal distortion for such a wide angle lens.  The addition of IS is helpful when shooting long exposures.  I am sure others will chime in with more detailed reviews, but I will soon be selling the 17-40 as it has not been used in 2 years.
Life is beautiful, but remember, a little mild insanity keeps us healthy
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:37 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 79609
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
In order of best to worst:
1. 16-35/2.8 III  - Excellent lens all around
2. 16-35/4 - Excellent lens but not useful for astro
3. 16-35/2.8 II - good lens but relatively low resolution in corners on newer sensors - not bad at 16mp but falls down on newer sensors
4. 17-40/4 - good lens but extreme barrel distortion throughout the zoom range.  Not up to the resolution standards to get the most out of today's sensors
5. 16-35/2.8 - was a good lens in the 4mp days, very poor corners with today's high rez sensors.

Also don't forget about the very good 11-24 f/4
 

by Paul Fusco on Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:56 pm
Paul Fusco
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4305
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Location: CT
E.J. Peiker wrote:
In order of best to worst:
1. 16-35/2.8 III  - Excellent lens all around
2. 16-35/4 - Excellent lens but not useful for astro
3. 16-35/2.8 II - good lens but relatively low resolution in corners on newer sensors - not bad at 16mp but falls down on newer sensors
4. 17-40/4 - good lens but extreme barrel distortion throughout the zoom range.  Not up to the resolution standards to get the most out of today's sensors
5. 16-35/2.8 - was a good lens in the 4mp days, very poor corners with today's high rez sensors.

Also don't forget about the very good 11-24 f/4


EJ,
Why do you say the 16-35/4 is not good for astro?
Because of being f/4?
Paul
Paul J. Fusco
NSN 0120


NSN Portfolio
http://www.naturescapes.net/portfolios/ ... ?cat=10317
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:28 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 79609
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Yeah it's just too slow unless you are using a star tracker.
 

by Andy Trowbridge on Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:34 pm
Andy Trowbridge
Forum Contributor
Posts: 961
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Paul Fusco wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:
In order of best to worst:
1. 16-35/2.8 III  - Excellent lens all around
2. 16-35/4 - Excellent lens but not useful for astro
3. 16-35/2.8 II - good lens but relatively low resolution in corners on newer sensors - not bad at 16mp but falls down on newer sensors
4. 17-40/4 - good lens but extreme barrel distortion throughout the zoom range.  Not up to the resolution standards to get the most out of today's sensors
5. 16-35/2.8 - was a good lens in the 4mp days, very poor corners with today's high rez sensors.

Also don't forget about the very good 11-24 f/4


EJ,
Why do you say the 16-35/4 is not good for astro?
Because of being f/4?
Paul


I've used it for astro and its not too bad esp. with a star tracker.  Has the best coma by far of the lenses mentioned.
All comments & suggestions welcomed and appreciated.
_______________________________________

Andy Trowbridge
http://www.andytrowbridge.com NEW!!
 

by Eduardo on Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:28 am
Eduardo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8498
Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Location: Boston, Mass
Like Ed, I have owned the 17_40 and the 16-35 f4. The newer model is so much better even if you are lucky to get a centered 17-40, 3 of 4 17-40 had one bad corner, not that the other 3 were as good as the newer version. Sold my copy of the 17-40.
 

by imagenes_vivas on Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:06 am
User avatar
imagenes_vivas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 246
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Change your 17-40mm f:4L as soon as you can. The 16-35mm f:4L IS is not expensive and so much better. Three years ago I wrote a review of the two lenses on my blog (in spanish, but you can use Google Translate). Better distorsion, better resolution, better corners, no coma, much less flare, beautiful sunstars...

http://blog.alamany.com/2014/11/test-zoom-canon-ef-16-35mm-f4l-is.html
 

by Neilyb on Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:17 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2499
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
I have used the 16-35 f4 for a couple of years now and it is an amazing lens, especially for the price (compared to the f2.8 version). Granted f4 is a little limiting for astro but my main use for the lens is landscapes. I did recently buy an Irix 15mm 2.4 and hope to do some milky way shots in Scotland if I get the chance.
 

by Wildflower-nut on Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:25 am
Wildflower-nut
Forum Contributor
Posts: 435
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
sold my 17-40 and use 16-35 f4. I don't like the 16-35 f2.8 III for astro as the vignetting at 16mm and 2.8 is extraordinarily high. For astro, look at tamron 15-30 f2.8
 

by EGrav on Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:00 am
User avatar
EGrav
Forum Contributor
Posts: 359
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: USA
Wildflower-nut wrote:
sold my 17-40 and use 16-35 f4.  I don't like the 16-35 f2.8 III for astro as the vignetting at 16mm and 2.8 is extraordinarily high.  For astro, look at tamron 15-30 f2.8




Agree with the vignette problem with 16-35 2.8 III and astro/nightscapes. Tamron 15-30 2.8 is excellent.
YMMV
:D
body{zoom:150%!important;}



body{zoom:150%!important;}
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
11 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group