Canon 16-35L or 17-40L

[Disco Stu]

Hi all, only my second post on here & would appreciate some advice on these two lenses.
I`m predominantly a landscape shooter & use a 5dmk11 with the 24-105 & 70-200.
Im looking to add either the 17-40 or the 16-35 to my bag but i`m undesided on which.
As i said i`m a lanscape photographer & always use a tripod so the extra stop is not a concern to me, neither is barrel distortion ( easily corected in pp ). What is a concern & a priority for me is dof.
I tend to include lots of foreground in my shots & need to acheive front to back sharpness.
personaly i feel the 24-105 falls shorts in this area & am even considering replacing it with 24-70, but thas another thread.
Thanks in advance for you comments.

Regards Stu.

[ether]

Originally Posted by Disco Stu

Hi all, only my second post on here & would appreciate some advice on these two lenses.
I`m predominantly a landscape shooter & use a 5dmk11 with the 24-105 & 70-200.
Im looking to add either the 17-40 or the 16-35 to my bag but i`m undesided on which.
As i said i`m a lanscape photographer & always use a tripod so the extra stop is not a concern to me, neither is barrel distortion ( easily corected in pp ). What is a concern & a priority for me is dof.
I tend to include lots of foreground in my shots & need to acheive front to back sharpness.
personaly i feel the 24-105 falls shorts in this area & am even considering replacing it with 24-70, but thas another thread.
Thanks in advance for you comments.

Regards Disco.

I have the EF 24-70 f2.8 L and really rate this lens for landscapes,
I also have the fisheye (sigma) which I use for the wide end and like you adjust in photo shop or just stitch images for more conventional shots

Ed

[flake]

I haven't bought either of these two as according to photozone they simply aren't good enough! Both of them should attain the same depth of field given the same parameters.

Although rather extreme distortions are an issue with both lenses at the wide end, the main problem with them is resolution at the edges, to a degree that I cannot live with. It seems that the ciritcism Canon are unable to make a decent wide angle zoom is in fact a valid one.

So you're left with a work around, there's the Sigma 12 - 24mm (which I use until Canon gets its act together); there's the excellent Nikon 24 - 24mm with an adaptor as used by Rob Galbraith; Or you stick with the lens you have and resort to stitching which will give a better resolution all across the image.

Of course this won't work if there is movement in the shot so it's a limited solution. As for front to back sharpness I'm going to do some experiments with focus stacking for landscapes in a effort to gain that bit more without losing it due to diffraction.

[duncan22]

Take a look at the reviews for the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM.
I also take landscape photos and am seriously considering this lens

[flake]

Originally Posted by duncan22

Take a look at the reviews for the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM.
I also take landscape photos and am seriously considering this lens

Now I'd love to see you trying to get an EF-s lens onto a 5D MkII !!

[Disco Stu]

Thanks for your comments, I notice you mention sigma? i have no experience with third party glass having never owned or used any thing other than canons own. Somewhat perplexing to think that canon cant seem to produce a decent wide angle lens.

I guess this leads me on to my next question ( sorry if this has been asked before ).

I may be in the minority here, but im not & never have been particulaly impressed by the 24-105.
I`m sure for some it`s a great lens ( Portraiture & weddings? ) but as a serious ( i use that phrase loosely) landscape lens it just dosent come up with goods.

My two main dissapointments are the CA & the lack of DOF. Ok CA not such a problem, as with distortion this can be easily corrected in pp. having said that, to suffer quite badly from distortion at the two extremes of this lens is not what you`d expect from canons finest.
So i suppose that perhaps i have only the one critisisum & thats the DOF. I tend not to go much either side of F8 & F11 due to diffration, any gain in DOF is soon negated by diffraction.

So to my question How does the 24-70 compare to the 24-105?. As i`ve mentioned previously, 90% of my photography is based on a tripod so the need for IS & the extra stop aren`t a nessesity but DOF is so could this be worth my time investing in .

Once again thanks in advance.

[flake]

It's a can of worms Stu and there's no right & wrong answer. I have both, and prefer the 24 - 70mm when I can, but when the light starts to fall this time of year the IS is a Godsend, and allows me to acheive the depth of field I want, which I could never do with the 24 -70mm. The f/4 is also a much lighter lens which makes it a bit easier to carry around, and then there's the extra 35mm which may or may not be of interest?

But I have to say that if you really want the ultimate in quality you should probably be considering prime lenses, the 24 - 70mm is perhaps as good as the 50mm f/1.4 (there's a marginal difference), but at the wide end I think the 24mm L offering is going to be difficult to beat.

[anglefire]

Have a look at http://www.the-digital-picture.com for some good reviews with various comparison options.

If you have a bottomless wallet, then the new TS-E 24mm is stunning. A review is available here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

And if you want wide, then the TS-E 17mm is also good. (The review on the above site also has a moue over comparing it to the 17-40 and 16-35mm)

Whilst Flake is no doubt correct in that the wide zooms are not as good as say Nikons (I tried the 14-24 on a Nikon D3 on Saturday, and it is stunning!) when you add all the other variables in, they are a decent compromise.

Oh, and finally have a look at this thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...34756&page=214 for some stunning examples of what the 17-40 can do - there will be another one for the 16-35 too.

[Disco Stu]

Well, Thankyou all for your helpfull comments. Flake, i`m now at the stage of try before i buy. For the time being i shall stick with the 24-105 & concentrate my efforts on a more focus landscape lens. I dont think i`ll completely disregard the 17-40/16-35, but i think a little more research is required before i put my hand in my pocket.

Anglefire, Thankyou for the review on the TSE 24. What can i say? very impressive lens indeed, but oh that price.

Thankyou all once again for you help.

Stu.

[Mutleycoach@igh3547.fsnet.co.uk]

the 16-35 works great for me down here in Cornwall ! and we have some impressive landscapes !