Rant about myself, I'm sure you can relate.

The1 · 01-20-2011, 03:59 PM

I recently bought myself a new lens. Before purchasing it, i put a lot of time and research into it before pulling the trigger.

a bit of background: I'm a huge fan of the L series lenses and have several. My main work horse is a 24-70mm f2.8. I'm so used to using it as my only lens indoors that i don't really think about how handy the 2.8 aperture opening is.

The two lenses i was deciding between were the 17-40mm F4 and the 16-35 F2.8. The 17-40 is about half the price of the other, and has roughly 5mm more zoom, so i figured it was a logical choice as it would let me buy something else with the money i saved.

I get it home and play with it a bit (the lens) and get used to how it works. I find i'm having to try and hold a little more still for some of the shots due to the smaller maximum aperture. I play this off as part of having the nice lens that completes my wide angle portion for my camera.

after using it for a few days and taking it to the auto show, i finally realize that i've become spoiled by the 2.8 max aperture and that i'm starting to miss it. though i decide not to put my 24-70 on for the show as my buddy is shooting regularly in that range, so we swap photos to get the full spectrum from 17mm full frame all the way up to 250mm crop body. (or 400mm for those who might be lost on what I'm on about)

today i finally decided, i need to right my wrong and get the lens i really wanted in the first place, but cheaped out on, so fortunatly i still had enough time left to return the 17-40mm and exchange it for the 16-35mm and finally be happy once again.

I've now been home about 15 minutes, and taken about 10 shots of random things, and i can finally say i'm now happy with my choice.

Moral of the story for all the aspiring photographers out there. If you have the choice, don't be stingy and get the cheaper one because you think it will be "good enough" Get what you really want, and be happy with it and don't turn back (unless you can't afford it in the first place)

This applies to many aspects in life, I don't mean to go out and buy the most expensive thing you can afford, i just mean to buy exactly what it was you wanted in the first place. Because, if you don't, you will always wonder.

Sorry to waste your time with this thread. But i had to say it.

and just for sticking it out this long, i've attached a fun picture for anyone silly enough to have read this far.

FStop7 · 01-20-2011, 04:28 PM

I have the 17-40 and I'm a little disappointed with it. The outer edges are softer than I would expect from an L lens. I paid $600 for it used, new they cost around $700. I think they should deliver more performance for the price. The 70-200 F4L is less than the 70-200 2.8L, yet it's still an amazing lens. The 17-40 is, IMO, not where it should be. I'll probably sell mine.

gixxer_kidd · 01-20-2011, 04:30 PM

I think most photographers have similar experiences. I remember when I first started, I had all zooms. Then sold them for primes. Then added some zooms again. I don't even remember how many lenses I bought and sold the first two years. In the end, I've realized they're all tools, and depending on the job, they all have their uses.

Congrats on the new lens. 16-35 is an excellent choice. I've had 2 copies, a 17-40, and an 14mm prime. I think the 16-35 was the sharpest wide open!

f/2.8 is awesome until you try 1.2, then there's no going back

The1 · 01-20-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FStop7

I have the 17-40 and I'm a little disappointed with it. The outer edges are softer than I would expect from an L lens. I paid $600 for it used, new they cost around $700. I think they should deliver more performance for the price. The 70-200 F4L is less than the 70-200 2.8L, yet it's still an amazing lens. The 17-40 is, IMO, not where it should be. I'll probably sell mine.

I agree 100% I didn't find the 17-40 as clear as my 24-70, which is surprising to me considering the smaller zoom range.

as far as the 70-200 goes. I hear the 2.8 is increadable, but i figured i didn't ever plan to shoot that lens indoors, so the 2.8 seemed a bit useless to me. I've never looked back because the F4 was exactly everything i needed in that situation.

I also use my 100-400 about 5x as often as the 70-200, so it will likely get sold, but it is an extremely nice lens.

The1 · 01-20-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The1

I agree 100% I didn't find the 17-40 as clear as my 24-70, which is surprising to me considering the smaller zoom range.

as far as the 70-200 goes. I hear the 2.8 is increadable, but i figured i didn't ever plan to shoot that lens indoors, so the 2.8 seemed a bit useless to me. I've never looked back because the F4 was exactly everything i needed in that situation.

I also use my 100-400 about 5x as often as the 70-200, so it will likely get sold, but it is an extremely nice lens.

lol, yeah, i'm trying to avoid going near 1.2 or 1.4... I have the crappy 1.8 50mm, and it's an amaizing little toy, but for everything my 24-70 can do, it rarely touches my camera, unless i plan on doing some portraits. which is rare.

immiketoo · 01-20-2011, 05:52 PM

OP, I went through this EXACT thing when deciding between the 70-200L whether to get the old one or the II. After a few days of trying to convince myself that I could live with the older version (Many test shots and hours of comparison) I ponied up for the newer version and I LOVE it. Like you, I always second guess myself if I don't get what I want and good enough never is. I feel your joy/disappointment

ChasVS · 01-20-2011, 07:50 PM

Reality is that your DOF is so shallow @ f2.8 that you'll probably be shooting f4 or smaller anyway with your 16-35 L. Let's just admit we want the expensive impressive lens and be done with it.

FStop7 · 01-20-2011, 07:51 PM

The 70-200 II is crazy. I was going through some shots I took with my 135 F2L and comparing them to my 70-200 II. There is almost no difference in sharpness between them. That is nuts for an IS zoom lens to match one of the "kings" of the Canon primes. That's what I expect from an L lens. The 17-40 just isn't in the same league. I'm not sure if the 16-35 is, either. I might need to look outside of Canon for a wide zoom, or just stick with wide primes like a 24 L II

I should add that my dissatisfaction with the 17-40 stems from use on a 5DMk2, which tends to beat the hell out of lenses in terms of pushing their limits of quality. On a crop body the 17-40 L may be better.

The1 · 01-20-2011, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FStop7

The 70-200 II is crazy. I was going through some shots I took with my 135 F2L and comparing them to my 70-200 II. There is almost no difference in sharpness between them. That is nuts for an IS zoom lens to match one of the "kings" of the Canon primes. That's what I expect from an L lens. The 17-40 just isn't in the same league. I'm not sure if the 16-35 is, either. I might need to look outside of Canon for a wide zoom, or just stick with wide primes like a 24 L II

from what i've seen with other people shooting the 16-35, it's definitely sharper, so i'll hopefully be able to verify that in the near future. For the money, it damn well better be

The1 · 01-20-2011, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChasVS

Reality is that your DOF is so shallow @ f2.8 that you'll probably be shooting f4 or smaller anyway with your 16-35 L. Let's just admit we want the expensive impressive lens and be done with it.

as for FOV with a 2.8, a 2.8 is more then enough aperture to get someones face nicely focused with them standing several feet away. if i were taking a picture of an entire car, i would have to agree that i'd be shooting well above an F4

Chewy734 · 01-20-2011, 07:58 PM

I agree, the 17-40mm isn't very sharp on the fringes. I like the lens, but the f/2.8 is just so much better, imo. I'm waiting for the MKII of the 24-70mm. I'm jealous of your 16-35 f/2.8!

I too regret my decisions, but the 17-40mm has served me well. Other lenses in that range weren't affordable for me at the time. Where do you guys recommend posting to get the most money on a used lens?

The1 · 01-20-2011, 08:15 PM

I've been watching over Amazon.com a lot lately (haven't pulled the trigger on anything yet, not a fan of ordering stuff online)

i've found the pricing is very good compared to a lot of places.

As for the 24-70mm mkII I have no idea what to expect from that, it's already so sharp, i find it hard to believe it will improve much in that respect.

as for the IS on it, it will be interesting to see, it will likely be the "up to 4 stops" of some of the current stuff coming out, which i have to admit on my 70-200 is very stable.

that is the one thing that i dislike about the 24-70, it isn't image stabelized, however, the only time that it has really been an issue is if i'm trying to hand hold the lens and take pictures of moving water. but day to day, it's such a fast lens, i don't really notice. Mind you, the more wide you are shooting, the less you'll notice camera giggle.

A common complaint is the weight of the lens, I don't mind it because i'm over 6'4 and 200lbs so it's a pretty nice weight to me. But I feel the weight is a trade off for the optics.

which brings me to a complaint of the 24-105mm I've heard it's probably 95% as sharp, but loses out on it's FOV, but makes up for it in lighter weight and image stabilization. Again, trade offs, you just have to see what is right for you.

The1 · 01-20-2011, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chewy734

I'm jealous of your 16-35 f/2.8!

I too regret my decisions, but the 17-40mm has served me well. Other lenses in that range weren't affordable for me at the time. Where do you guys recommend posting to get the most money on a used lens?

I really can't wait to find some opportunities to test out the new glass, perhaps the next auto show (would make a great comparison thread between the 2 lenses as i shot lots at the detroit show with the 17-40) But the girlfriend is working hard to convince me to go to florida when that show is on... so we'll have to wait and see.

ChasVS · 01-21-2011, 02:24 PM

We use some pretty sophisticated cameras with these lenses and I find the 24-70 excellent. When there's a need for a faster shutter at f2.8 or so, I just up the ISO a bit. These things are amazing at how sharp they can stay with an ISO over 400. Sure, I try to keep it as low as possible, but on my 5D Mk II and 1D Mk III the ISO range is awesome and can accomodate any issues on the current 24-70. IS is amazing as well and will only improve the results we can achieve!

The1 · 01-21-2011, 02:30 PM

I've been working hard lately to shoot the occasional shot above 400ISO

My 5D is usually on the 400 mark now, where with old cameras i wouldn't let it go past 100 if i had any choice.

I recently tryed the 70-200 F4 on a 7D and funny enough, i like how the lens works a whole lot better on a crop body then on my 5D. It's weird, but every other lens i own, I love on my 5DII with the exception of the 70-200.

I will likely be buying the 7D very soon, so that lens will be put to good use.

I've also found that the 70-200 F4IS is a very fast lens to focus, and i believe it makes the best use of the auto focus on the 7D so i'm pretty excited to see it all at work at my girlfriends next riding event.

immiketoo · 01-21-2011, 03:07 PM

I have done several shoots lately with the ISO on my 5D at 1200 or better and the image quality is still very, very good. With the IS on the 70-200 I can bump it down a bit and that's even better. Post up pics with that new lens so we can see the difference!

FStop7 · 01-21-2011, 05:19 PM

5D2 has very strong high ISO performance. Plus, at least to my eyes, the noise looks much less displeasing than most other cameras. It looks more like traditional film grain than digital noise.

This pic was shot at ISO 3200 and no noise reduction was applied.

vexx786 · 01-22-2011, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FStop7

5D2 has very strong high ISO performance. Plus, at least to my eyes, the noise looks much less displeasing than most other cameras. It looks more like traditional film grain than digital noise.

This pic was shot at ISO 3200 and no noise reduction was applied.

That is quite impressive compared to my T1i.

The1 · 01-22-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by immiketoo

I have done several shoots lately with the ISO on my 5D at 1200 or better and the image quality is still very, very good. With the IS on the 70-200 I can bump it down a bit and that's even better. Post up pics with that new lens so we can see the difference!

I'll try and get a good shot fairly soon, was hoping to get to the next auto show in toronto so i had some good comparison shots, but it's looking like that may not happen, so i'll try and get a few in the next day or two that show at least as close a comparison as i can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vexx786

That is quite impressive compared to my T1i.

I hear ya, when i had my t1i, i tryed very hard to never shoot above about 400 ISO it isn't too bad above that point, but nothing compared to the 5DII

bosstones · 01-22-2011, 01:53 PM

I love my 16-35 f2.8L. Oddly, I think my 24-105 f4L IS is sharper. I go thru the same debates w/ camera bags.....which is probably why I have too many of them. Luckily, they're cheaper than lenses.

The1 · 01-23-2011, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bosstones

I love my 16-35 f2.8L. Oddly, I think my 24-105 f4L IS is sharper. I go thru the same debates w/ camera bags.....which is probably why I have too many of them. Luckily, they're cheaper than lenses.

that's interesting to hear about the 24-105 being sharper......

I wish it wasn't so cold here right now, i might be able to get out and get a few shots today, but the brief time i spent outside today (walking girlfriends dogs) my face became chapped just because my eyes watered.

I know exactly what you're saying about camera bags too

I'm at 2 at the moment, but i'm just not satisfied.

Chewy734 · 01-23-2011, 09:49 AM

I think Jeff needs his eyes checked if he thinks the 24-105 is sharper.

01-20-2011, 03:59 PM	#1
The1 Major General 76 Rep 5,114 Posts Drives: white 135 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: KW ontario/vancouver temporarily iTrader: (0)	Rant about myself, I'm sure you can relate. I recently bought myself a new lens. Before purchasing it, i put a lot of time and research into it before pulling the trigger. a bit of background: I'm a huge fan of the L series lenses and have several. My main work horse is a 24-70mm f2.8. I'm so used to using it as my only lens indoors that i don't really think about how handy the 2.8 aperture opening is. The two lenses i was deciding between were the 17-40mm F4 and the 16-35 F2.8. The 17-40 is about half the price of the other, and has roughly 5mm more zoom, so i figured it was a logical choice as it would let me buy something else with the money i saved. I get it home and play with it a bit (the lens) and get used to how it works. I find i'm having to try and hold a little more still for some of the shots due to the smaller maximum aperture. I play this off as part of having the nice lens that completes my wide angle portion for my camera. after using it for a few days and taking it to the auto show, i finally realize that i've become spoiled by the 2.8 max aperture and that i'm starting to miss it. though i decide not to put my 24-70 on for the show as my buddy is shooting regularly in that range, so we swap photos to get the full spectrum from 17mm full frame all the way up to 250mm crop body. (or 400mm for those who might be lost on what I'm on about) today i finally decided, i need to right my wrong and get the lens i really wanted in the first place, but cheaped out on, so fortunatly i still had enough time left to return the 17-40mm and exchange it for the 16-35mm and finally be happy once again. I've now been home about 15 minutes, and taken about 10 shots of random things, and i can finally say i'm now happy with my choice. Moral of the story for all the aspiring photographers out there. If you have the choice, don't be stingy and get the cheaper one because you think it will be "good enough" Get what you really want, and be happy with it and don't turn back (unless you can't afford it in the first place) This applies to many aspects in life, I don't mean to go out and buy the most expensive thing you can afford, i just mean to buy exactly what it was you wanted in the first place. Because, if you don't, you will always wonder. Sorry to waste your time with this thread. But i had to say it. and just for sticking it out this long, i've attached a fun picture for anyone silly enough to have read this far. Attached Images
	Appreciate 0 Tweet Quote

01-20-2011, 04:28 PM	#2
FStop7 I like cars 346 Rep 5,051 Posts Drives: M6 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Newbury Park, CA iTrader: (3)	I have the 17-40 and I'm a little disappointed with it. The outer edges are softer than I would expect from an L lens. I paid $600 for it used, new they cost around $700. I think they should deliver more performance for the price. The 70-200 F4L is less than the 70-200 2.8L, yet it's still an amazing lens. The 17-40 is, IMO, not where it should be. I'll probably sell mine.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-20-2011, 04:30 PM	#3
gixxer_kidd Major 86 Rep 1,468 Posts Drives: e92 m3 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Northern VA iTrader: (18) Garage List 2008 m3 [10.00]	I think most photographers have similar experiences. I remember when I first started, I had all zooms. Then sold them for primes. Then added some zooms again. I don't even remember how many lenses I bought and sold the first two years. In the end, I've realized they're all tools, and depending on the job, they all have their uses. Congrats on the new lens. 16-35 is an excellent choice. I've had 2 copies, a 17-40, and an 14mm prime. I think the 16-35 was the sharpest wide open! f/2.8 is awesome until you try 1.2, then there's no going back
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-20-2011, 07:50 PM	#7
ChasVS Colonel 41 Rep 2,431 Posts Drives: 2012 MB ML350 Bluetec Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Central FL iTrader: (10)	Reality is that your DOF is so shallow @ f2.8 that you'll probably be shooting f4 or smaller anyway with your 16-35 L. Let's just admit we want the expensive impressive lens and be done with it.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-20-2011, 07:51 PM	#8
FStop7 I like cars 346 Rep 5,051 Posts Drives: M6 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Newbury Park, CA iTrader: (3)	The 70-200 II is crazy. I was going through some shots I took with my 135 F2L and comparing them to my 70-200 II. There is almost no difference in sharpness between them. That is nuts for an IS zoom lens to match one of the "kings" of the Canon primes. That's what I expect from an L lens. The 17-40 just isn't in the same league. I'm not sure if the 16-35 is, either. I might need to look outside of Canon for a wide zoom, or just stick with wide primes like a 24 L II I should add that my dissatisfaction with the 17-40 stems from use on a 5DMk2, which tends to beat the hell out of lenses in terms of pushing their limits of quality. On a crop body the 17-40 L may be better.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-20-2011, 07:58 PM	#11
Chewy734 Major General 499 Rep 6,798 Posts Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: LA, CA iTrader: (15)	I agree, the 17-40mm isn't very sharp on the fringes. I like the lens, but the f/2.8 is just so much better, imo. I'm waiting for the MKII of the 24-70mm. I'm jealous of your 16-35 f/2.8! I too regret my decisions, but the 17-40mm has served me well. Other lenses in that range weren't affordable for me at the time. Where do you guys recommend posting to get the most money on a used lens? __________________ Currently for sale: [19" Linea Corse LC818 wheel], [19" Fallen FK452 tire]
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-20-2011, 08:15 PM	#12
The1 Major General 76 Rep 5,114 Posts Drives: white 135 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: KW ontario/vancouver temporarily iTrader: (0)	I've been watching over Amazon.com a lot lately (haven't pulled the trigger on anything yet, not a fan of ordering stuff online) i've found the pricing is very good compared to a lot of places. As for the 24-70mm mkII I have no idea what to expect from that, it's already so sharp, i find it hard to believe it will improve much in that respect. as for the IS on it, it will be interesting to see, it will likely be the "up to 4 stops" of some of the current stuff coming out, which i have to admit on my 70-200 is very stable. that is the one thing that i dislike about the 24-70, it isn't image stabelized, however, the only time that it has really been an issue is if i'm trying to hand hold the lens and take pictures of moving water. but day to day, it's such a fast lens, i don't really notice. Mind you, the more wide you are shooting, the less you'll notice camera giggle. A common complaint is the weight of the lens, I don't mind it because i'm over 6'4 and 200lbs so it's a pretty nice weight to me. But I feel the weight is a trade off for the optics. which brings me to a complaint of the 24-105mm I've heard it's probably 95% as sharp, but loses out on it's FOV, but makes up for it in lighter weight and image stabilization. Again, trade offs, you just have to see what is right for you.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-21-2011, 02:24 PM	#14
ChasVS Colonel 41 Rep 2,431 Posts Drives: 2012 MB ML350 Bluetec Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Central FL iTrader: (10)	We use some pretty sophisticated cameras with these lenses and I find the 24-70 excellent. When there's a need for a faster shutter at f2.8 or so, I just up the ISO a bit. These things are amazing at how sharp they can stay with an ISO over 400. Sure, I try to keep it as low as possible, but on my 5D Mk II and 1D Mk III the ISO range is awesome and can accomodate any issues on the current 24-70. IS is amazing as well and will only improve the results we can achieve!
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-21-2011, 02:30 PM	#15
The1 Major General 76 Rep 5,114 Posts Drives: white 135 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: KW ontario/vancouver temporarily iTrader: (0)	I've been working hard lately to shoot the occasional shot above 400ISO My 5D is usually on the 400 mark now, where with old cameras i wouldn't let it go past 100 if i had any choice. I recently tryed the 70-200 F4 on a 7D and funny enough, i like how the lens works a whole lot better on a crop body then on my 5D. It's weird, but every other lens i own, I love on my 5DII with the exception of the 70-200. I will likely be buying the 7D very soon, so that lens will be put to good use. I've also found that the 70-200 F4IS is a very fast lens to focus, and i believe it makes the best use of the auto focus on the 7D so i'm pretty excited to see it all at work at my girlfriends next riding event.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-21-2011, 05:19 PM	#17
FStop7 I like cars 346 Rep 5,051 Posts Drives: M6 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Newbury Park, CA iTrader: (3)	5D2 has very strong high ISO performance. Plus, at least to my eyes, the noise looks much less displeasing than most other cameras. It looks more like traditional film grain than digital noise. This pic was shot at ISO 3200 and no noise reduction was applied.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-22-2011, 01:53 PM	#20
bosstones Lieutenant Colonel 1266 Rep 1,608 Posts Drives: o_0 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Suburbia iTrader: (0)	I love my 16-35 f2.8L. Oddly, I think my 24-105 f4L IS is sharper. I go thru the same debates w/ camera bags.....which is probably why I have too many of them. Luckily, they're cheaper than lenses. __________________ - Jeff bosstones' flickr
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-23-2011, 09:49 AM	#22
Chewy734 Major General 499 Rep 6,798 Posts Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: LA, CA iTrader: (15)	I think Jeff needs his eyes checked if he thinks the 24-105 is sharper. __________________ Currently for sale: [19" Linea Corse LC818 wheel], [19" Fallen FK452 tire]
	Appreciate 0 Quote