Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 16, 2002, 12:12 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 32
Default 17-35mm vs. 16-35mm

Has anyone owned both? I have the 17-35mm lens and I'm wondering if it's worth the upgrade. I own a D30.

Thanks

Mark
MarkM is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 18, 2002, 12:58 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 28
Default

Hi,

as I mentioned in the other thread before, there's an article, that highly recommends the 16-35mm:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/17_35VS16_35/index.html

Maybe this info gives this thread a push.
Chris™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2002, 2:57 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 32
Default

Maybe the link to the review is enough.

I was curious if anyone had traded up and had feedback on whether the 16-35mm was worth the extra bucks. The minimum focusing distance would be a nice improvement as well.

Thanks
MarkM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2002, 10:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 259
Default EF16-35 Samples

I just did the first realworld shots with my EF16-35. The following pix were taken at f-4.0, and either 16mm or 35mm.

I had been hearing grumbling about the softness of this lens. Although the shots are not at f-2.8, I am still amazed myself at the contrast and detail of this lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/2808325/original

http://www.pbase.com/image/2808138/original

http://www.pbase.com/image/2808329/original


[Edited on 7-1-2002 by WalterK]
WalterK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2002, 12:16 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 32
Default

Walter,

Thanks for the post. Once I recover from spending $2500 on my D60, I'm going to trade in my 17-35mm...which I've never really been 100% happy with. One photographer I talked to said that the build quality was better on the 17-35mm...but that could just be bad luck.

Mark

BTW - Love the photos!!!

[Edited on 7-14-2002 by MarkM]
MarkM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2002, 11:07 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8
Default

Reminds me of my 17-35L still. No serious increase in quality to my eye. The typical L "pop" is there color/contrast-wise, but the sharpness? forget it.

Wide Angle is a tough nut to crack design-wise. There's just no way you'll get the sharpness of the 28-70L in a lens that wide. Not even the 14mm prime L.

I'm not upgrading, i'm sticking with my 17-35L, even though I hate using it I don't do enough wide stuff to justify the extra cost of the 16-35 or the 14mm prime.
Karl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2002, 11:28 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6
Default

I thought I'd send an example of a shot I felt was very much up to L par for a wide angle zoom. I feel the 16-35L is indeed an improvement albeit evolutionary.

traveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2002, 4:00 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8
Default Yeah, great...

You keep posting that same resampled shot. Can you please just cut out a piece at 1:1 and post that instead?

That shows the lens characteristics far more honestly than your scaled down resampled shot.
Karl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 1:31 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 32
Default

Articles aside, I keep hearing the same thing from people who've upgraded from the 17-35mm...not worth the extra money. I've decided to keep my lens, and after looking through several photos...it's pretty sharp---when I'm in focus. Now I've got my eye on the 28-70 f2.8 L...no complaints from anyone on that lens.
MarkM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2002, 12:15 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 35
Default

I saw an article by David who did some tests comparing the 2 lenses. What was odd was his 17-25, when pressing the shutter half way over and over to focus on the same thing, would wind up at different focusing specs. This would put some of the pictures out of focus and some in focus.

He questions if this was happening on the test that Fred Miranda did. Interesting point.

Overall though, I decided to buy the 16-35 as I do not have a wide angle yet.

Pete
Peter Gregg is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron 18-250mm zoom problem lsifs Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT 10 Jul 11, 2007 10:34 PM
Digital vs. 35mm - My recent discussion . . . BrierS General Discussion 4 Dec 10, 2006 9:45 PM
[Recovered Thread: 96031] TravisG5 Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless 23 Jun 29, 2006 2:36 PM
[Recovered Thread: 85008] GWHayduke General Discussion 177 Mar 18, 2006 2:19 PM
[Recovered Thread: 69768] Shanti Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT 8 Oct 5, 2005 10:50 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:02 PM.