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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 22, 2005, 3:25 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 23
Default

Currently shooting w/Canon, 24mm/1.4L & having great results. Is it worth the effort to swap to the Canon, 16 - 35mm/2.8L for more flexibility? For those having used the 16 - 35, leave your likes or dislikes.
DaMat is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 25, 2005, 1:57 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

You need them both of course. Keep the 24. Buy the zoom.
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2005, 2:04 PM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

well, you can always go another route, you can keep your 24 1.4L that you have been having good results with.. and then pick up Sigma's 17-35 2.8-4.0 EX DG.. its a greatlens, their EX line is every bit as well made and sharpas the L-series, and the cost savings over the 16-35 will allow you to keep your beloved 24 1.4L...
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2005, 3:14 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default


Hey,, Hard, man, no...Dont say Sig,..sig, sigm.... that word man.

Say L ....man.. L for Lux, for Love and for L for Lunaticly ungloublishly fitlenses that melt in your mouth and not in you camera bag ..man :O

LBoy :?
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2005, 4:38 PM   #5
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

don't take my word for it... lets look at the MTFs...

Canon



Sigma



the mtfs don't lie, now its up to you to decideif youfind the $900 difference...
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2005, 5:54 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Let's see.

Canon is
L glass
f/2.8 through the whole zoom range
expensive

Sigma is
EX (almost like L)
f/2.8-4 (BAD if you shoot low light)
still not cheap.

I'd take the Canon, but I've only ever tried the Canon one and it was very very sweet. Perhaps someone has shot with both.

Also knowing what the OP wants to shoot with this lens would help people in giving answers....*cough* :-)
Spec3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2005, 6:01 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i would hardly call f4.0 bad in low light.. also, if he goes with the sigma, he can keep his 24mm 1.4L for low light conditions... i am not saying it would not be nice to have a constant f2.8 throughout the range, i just do not think it justifies $900... nor am i saying the canon is an inferior lens, i am just saying the seperation hardly justifies its price increase.. also, since these superwides are often used for landscapes/urban photography.. how often are you going to use the wide open aperature with its limited DOF..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 4:46 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

How bout sticking with primes which you have mentioned work for you. The CanonEF35 f1.4L USM would work. Then you could always crop for the difference the zoom gives you.
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 6:54 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

LBoy wrote:
Quote:
How bout sticking with primes which you have mentioned work for you. The Canon EF35 f1.4L USM would work. Then you could always crop for the difference the zoom gives you.
We already have prove that: modern zooms are sharper than antique prime - even L!

Just check the EF35 f/1.4 L MTF:
(... when closed down to f/8 may be)


BTW here's a shot from the Sigma 17-35 EX (how bad can this lens be?) - for the price it's a steal over the Canon's: :idea:


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 7:10 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

The original poster is .. I bet having such great results due to the flexibility of the 1.4f. The modern zooms may exhibit slightly better results out of camera with respect to sharpness. Images that will still probably be sharpened anyway afterwards. So whats the difference for USM at 110 percent and USM at 130 percent - nothing.

What is more concerning is being able to get the shot required, which the primes undoubtedly provide. ie With supply of light.

Sorry but your shot is definitely not sharp, and the top third strangley is badly blurred.


Anyway zoom or prime, stick with L. You'll later wish you had.
LBoy 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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:53 PM.