Originally Posted by c.edwards
Well, it depends on what you're going to do with the photos. For posting images to the web and making small 4x6 prints (i.e. using less than 2 megapixels), the original 16-35 is up to snuff. In really tiny displays, the only noticeable difference will be the distortion, I think.
But if you plan on making medium-sized prints like 8x10, then the difference between the two will be visible.
Yes, it certainly is.
I second this. Most folks just assume that the "L" lenses will be as good or better than EF-S lenses, and they are quite shocked when they learn how poor the quality is.
Are you sure you want to pay $1,500 for a lens that is much lower quality than a $450 lens? If you look at contrast and resolution:
- The 16-35 pretty low image quality.
- The 16-35 II has higher image quality than the 16-35.
- The Tamron 17-50 ($450), Sigma 18-50, and Canon 17-55 all has much higher image quality than the 16-35 II.
Photozone, DPR, and slrgear.com can specify exactly how much better the 17-55 would be.
Even if you get the 16-35 II, I think you will end up repurchasing again anyway.On full frame, it's a very high quality ultra wide f/2.8 zoom.But a lot of people don't need or want such a heavy, fast ultra wide. The typical way to shoot ultra wide is at f/8 or narrower, for maximum depth of field.
For example, if you wanted the same angle of view and light collecting ability as the 16-35mm f/2.8, but on a crop camera, you would need a 10-22mm f/1.8. The only EF-S lens Canon makes like that is the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. It's 1.6-2.3 stops slower (i.e. five times less light and five times deeper DOF).
The 17-40 f/4 is much smaller, lighter, cheaper, and slower. For some folks, it's too slow and low quality to use on APS-C. But on full frame, if you stop down to f/8, the quality is amazing.
It would be a lot cheaper and give you much higher quality if you just bought two lenses: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Canon 17-40f/4. You can leave the Canon camera in the box for 1-2 years while you don't have full frame. In the mean time you'll get cheap, fast, and high quality. When you get full frame, you can literally throw the 17-50 in the trash and still have more money than if you bought the 16-35. (Though I would recommend reselling it or keeping it for a second body.)
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
<div>It's kind of like buying a car when you have no gas. You'll have to push around this big old heavy thing for a few years, but when you finally do get gas, it will be great. If you buy a bicycle now, it's will be a lot lighter, cheaper, and faster than pushing a car. The downside is you'll have to repurchase later when you have gas. [] </div>
<div></div>
<div>Hope that helps.</div>
Reply With Quote