16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
Hi,
I'm not sure which one should I get. I'm using my 5D a little bit more for video than photography. I rearly shoot landscapes. With video F2.8 would help indroos since there are many times I can't use any extra lighting, but I think F4 would be enough outside. Also under 24mm or so, F4 would be enough when you think DOF because there's no need for shallower DOF in that area, but at 35mm it would be nice to have F2.8...
Then you have the money question.. 16-35 is twice as much. But I've been thinking it like this, would I ever buy prime lens under 135mm that is slower than 2.8? No. So if I buy 16-35, I would never think about byuing any other lens under 50mm. At least not in next 5 years or so. But if I buy 17-40, there might come time when I want to buy some faster lens in that range. Also, lets say I want primes for that range and I buy 35mm, 24mm and one under 20mm, all non-L. Those would cost almost the same as 16-35, wouldnt be any faster and wouldn't have same L lens quality. It's way better in that range to have 1 zoom than 3 different primes too.
Other lenses I own and will keep:
50/1.4
85/1.8
I'm not gonna need any other primes under 135mm. I've been thinking about buing some IS zoom lens for video though.
So, what should I get?
Re: 16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
Question, why are you using it more of a video then a camera?
Just my opinion, if you're going to shoot video a lot, buy a HD Camcorder, it'd be cheaper IMO :)
But if you're asking which lens to get for both? It really comes down to $$ IMO and fStop, 2.8 vs 4. I'm a big fan of the 2.8 and lower lens, but that's just me, but it also cost double the $$ half the time :)
I think both are great lens for the range.
Re: 16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo
I'm using my 5D a little bit more for video than photography.
Generally, I would suggest the 16-35. It really helps to be able to get a little background blur at wide angles, and will help a lot in low light. For video you might consider which one has a better manual focus ring.
Re: 16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotsecretary
Question, why are you using it more of a video then a camera?
Probably the same reason as me, because it's awesome. Just shot a multi-cam wedding last weekend entirely with 5D2's (The more expensive "traditional" video cameras never left their bags.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotsecretary
Just my opinion, if you're going to shoot video a lot, buy a HD Camcorder, it'd be cheaper IMO :)
Sure thing. Can you point me the way to the nearest HD camcorder with 36x24mm sensor and f/1.4 lenses for control over depth of field and shooting at ISO 6400? The $200,000 Sony cameras and $20,000 RED ONE don't count because they're too small: only 24x15mm.
So far the only alternative I can find is the $300,000 Phantom, but I don't have that kind of money.
Video is the reason why they can't keep the 5D2 on the shelf even 9 months after release: filmmakers are buying too many of them.
Re: 16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
I say buy the 16-35. I'm a huge fan of this lens. It is a little pricy but I think it is worth it. I actually look at it as bargain, the 14 2.8 is $500 more and the 16-35 is just about as sharp at 16 compared to the 14s native. Given there is a tiny bit more distortion. 6 diagonal degrees and slightly less distortion weren't worth the $500 to me.
2.8 was a big selling point over the 17-40. For a while the 24-105 was my most used lens, but then I starting shooting a lot of scenic portraiture, such as people in their offices, places of work and such, and soon realized f4 still left a lot of distracting background elements reasonably sharp especially in tight places. So I abandoned it for 16-35 2.8 for these types of shots.
The 17-40 would be great value for landscape and architectural stuff(I actually have used it for this before)but I think for real world stuff, with a lens that wide, 2.8 is very valuable.
Re: 16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotsecretary
Question, why are you using it more of a video then a camera?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
If you can find a video camera that a) shoots HD, b) has a 50 mbps data
rate, c) has interchangable lenses, d) has a 35 mm or larger sensor and
e) costs less than $150k, drop me a message.
5D is awesome but a little expensive camera for photography. But it's even more awesome and freaking cheap for a video camera like that.
Re: 16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
I luuuuuuuuv my 16-35... the extra reach is nice on the 17-40 but (for me anyways) the extra stop is the winner.
Re: 16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
I guess I'm wrong ;) I never knew it was that good for HD Video, I heard a lot of complaints about it's function while shooting videos.
Even more reason for me to want one now.
Re: 16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotsecretary
I guess I'm wrong ;) I never knew it was that good for HD Video, I heard a lot of complaints about it's function while shooting videos.
Even more reason for me to want one now.
Plus, isn't the 5DmkII really the bench for image quality too. I know it is the best Canon has right now, but doesn't it really best the Nikons? IQ speaking only.
Re: 16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotsecretary
I never knew it was that good for HD Video, I heard a lot of complaints about it's function while shooting videos.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Some of them were from me. I complain about it all the time. :) The Canon 1.1.0 firmware helped a bit by adding manual control, and the Magic Lantern Free Software is taking care of many of the other complaints I've had. Version 0.1.6 just came out with some awesome features for still shooters too, such as automatic focus stacking.
The biggest issue is one that can't be fixed: aliasing. It skips 2/3 lines reading the sensor, which results in really bad aliasing artifacts such as moire. Even the cheapo camcorders don't have it that bad. But most people (including me) are living with the artifacts to get the benefits of the sensor size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Plus, isn't the 5DmkII really the bench for
image quality too. I know it is the best Canon has right now, but
doesn't it really best the Nikons? IQ speaking only.
The Nikon D3X is the king of dynamic range. I think the D3 and 5D2 are pretty close in underexposure (high ISO). I'm really curious to see how the 1Ds4 and 1D4 will turn out.
