Old 12-14-2011, 12:52 AM   #26
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytiger View Post
How does it compare with the 17-85? That's what I have now, and if it really is that good, I'd love to give it a whirl.
Make sure its the mk11 Others in that range suck so look just as Troy had it
ef 28-105 f 3.5-4.5 ii
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 01:00 AM   #27
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Oh, I should have mentioned, if anyone wants a 17-85 IS, shoot me an offer, like I said, I dont use it anymore.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 01:03 AM   #28
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
I would have bought the 400/5.6L prime and saved some money.
And that my friend is Canons best prime to no IS but so sharp you can cut your self. BTW seen a Canon EF 200 f1.8L today used for only $3800.00 and thats a wanted lens for Basketball and football shooters.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 01:06 AM   #29
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milwman View Post
And that my friend is Canons best prime to no IS but so sharp you can cut your self. BTW seen a Canon EF 200 f1.8L today used for only $3800.00 and thats a wanted lens for Basketball and football shooters.
Yea, I borrowed a buddy's 400/5.6 and was shocked how much better it is than the 100-400@400. Focuses MUCH faster, and was very sharp. Maybe I have a bad copy, but I have never been terribly impressed by the IQ of my 100-400, and that is after sending it to Canon for re-calibration (almost $300). Mainly I dont find myself needing or using the 200-400mm focal length as much as I first envisioned. I had the opportunity to buy my friends 400/5.6 a while back for $900 and didnt, he bought a 400/2.8, which is an enormous lens, I have not had the opportunity to use, and may never will, but it is impressive.

Last edited by troy12n; 12-14-2011 at 01:11 AM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 01:14 AM   #30
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

I have the 24-105 and when I put it on my 40D I loved it and almost never took it off. I bought, and still have, the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 (pre v\c) that I bought first because I did not have enough cash for the Canon. I honestly wish I saved for the 24-105. The Tamy is faster but the picture quality in my opinion is much better in the 24-105.

I just picked up a 5D and was thinking about the 16-35 as I saw it is on sale. I want a little wider and faster lens.(star trails and night stuff) If they made the 24-105 in f/2.8, I think it would be and even better lens than it is now.
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 01:18 AM   #31
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khalucha View Post
I just picked up a 5D and was thinking about the 16-35 as I saw it is on sale. I want a little wider and faster lens.(star trails and night stuff) If they made the 24-105 in f/2.8, I think it would be and even better lens than it is now.
Get a 17-40L, you dont need the 16-35, it's twice as expensive or more and only 1 stop faster, only 1mm wider and 5mm SHORTER than the 17-40. I find myself wishing the 17-40 was longer, I couldnt imagine the 16-35. Wish they made a 17-50L.

You dont need f2.8 to do star trails. I was kind of disappointed in the 17-40 when I first bought it, but at the time, my only body was a 40D, once I got a 5D, it "came alive" so to speak on the wide angle side, I dont think it has been on my 40d in over a year.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 01:45 AM   #32
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

Looking at some pictures I have seen posted, I think the 16-35 looks better than the 17-40 & 24-105. I might just rent one for a day or two from Lensrentals and try it out.

As a side note I also have the 70-200 f/4 IS for about a year now and it is and awesome lens!
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 02:12 AM   #33
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by khalucha View Post
Looking at some pictures I have seen posted, I think the 16-35 looks better than the 17-40 & 24-105.
If you like the fish eye look at the low end, then the 17-40 is for you.

If you prefer a straighter look, then the 16-35 is what will produce that.

They both are good lenses, but there is a reason the 16-35 is almost twice the price.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 06:08 AM   #34
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

GAHHHH!!! I WISH I HAD SOME MONEY TO BUY ONE, LET ALONE THREE, OF THESE LENSES!!!!! GRRRRR!!!!

/broke kid.
__________________
Be governed accordingly,

PFL
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 08:34 AM   #35
mark woody
Senior Member
 
mark woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mudgee N.S.W. Australia
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milwman View Post
24 mm isn't that wide so get this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._f_4L_USM.html if the 24-105 looks good to you go with it.
Agreed but for some shots it is plenty, this was 24mm on my 450D, attached is the original.


Image © mark woody
PhotoID: 380722
Photograph © mark woody

Last edited by mark woody; 05-27-2014 at 10:52 AM.
mark woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 11:50 AM   #36
Paolo Roffo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 175
Default

Another vote for the 24-105L. I love it.
__________________
The light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train. I have the pictures to prove it.
Paolo Roffo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 12:41 PM   #37
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Mainly I dont find myself needing or using the 200-400mm focal length as much as I first envisioned.
Take a drive up to Donner sometime...you'll be happy to have that lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
I was kind of disappointed in the 17-40 when I first bought it, but at the time, my only body was a 40D, once I got a 5D, it "came alive" so to speak on the wide angle side, I dont think it has been on my 40d in over a year.
I agree. The 17-40 on the 5D rocks! I try to shoot at f8 as much as possible (during the day), though, as that seems to be the sweet spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
If you like the fish eye look at the low end, then the 17-40 is for you.

If you prefer a straighter look, then the 16-35 is what will produce that.
Are you saying the 16mm has less wide angle distortion than the 17mm? If that's the case, I need to check out that lens. I'd be using it on a 5D.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 01:57 PM   #38
jnohallman
Senior Member
 
jnohallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,527
Default

Does anyone here know anything about the performance of the 17-35 2.8L? I gather it was replaced in the lineup by the 16-35, but can be had used for a grand or so.

Jon
__________________
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain

Click here to see my photos on RP.net!

Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, click here. Don't even think about it. I'm warning you!
jnohallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 03:21 AM   #39
qnyla
Member
 
qnyla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 30
Default

As others have noted, the 16-35mm f/2.8L II is not worth the extra cost vs. the 17-40mm f/4L. Both of them have slightly soft corners on full frame.

Here is a shot with a 16-35L II on full frame

Image © John Benner
PhotoID: 247238
Photograph © John Benner


If you are not planning on moving to full frame soon, another lens you may wish to consider is the EF-S 15-85mm IS. It is not an L lens, but is noted for sharpness, it has a wide zoom range (24-135mm full-frame equivalent), it has IS, and is only $659.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._5_5_6_IS.html
__________________
My RP Photos
qnyla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 06:46 AM   #40
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Are you saying the 16mm has less wide angle distortion than the 17mm? If that's the case, I need to check out that lens. I'd be using it on a 5D.
Yes.

The 17mm looks like this:

Wrap Job Night Image

Train 589 under the Moon

Big Chief


Photos by Ken Szok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/szoksna...7616175440614/
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 06:52 AM   #41
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb More examples of the 16mm

Here are some with the 16mm.

BNSF 7558 At Fullerton

BNSF 7787 under a  Full Moon

Building Up Air
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 12:29 PM   #42
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Yes.

The 17mm looks like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Here are some with the 16mm.
Not the best comparison. With the 17mm shots, the angle seems to be a little lower, looking upward, creating more distortion, where as the 16mm shots look more straight on.

Do you have any where the same subject was taken with both lenses from the same perspective?
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 10:12 PM   #43
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

I am not sure if this is allowed but here is where I was looking at the 16-35 at: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=411156

Not sure if this helps you out at all Jim.
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 10:19 PM   #44
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khalucha View Post
I am not sure if this is allowed but here is where I was looking at the 16-35 at: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=411156

Not sure if this helps you out at all Jim.
I don't know why I didn't think to check there. I've been a forum member for nearly 6 years, although I don't visit there very often any more. Thanks for the link.

Edit: After looking at dozens of architectural shots, it appears the wide angle distortion of this lens is really no different from the 17-40.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias

Last edited by JimThias; 12-16-2011 at 10:32 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 11:36 PM   #45
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark woody View Post
Agreed but for some shots it is plenty, this was 24mm on my 450D, attached is the original.

yea I have one but 24 may not be as wide as he wants is all I was getting too.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 07:28 PM   #46
Amtrakdavis22
Senior Member
 
Amtrakdavis22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 308
Default

Thank you to everyone who responded with an opinion or helped the greater discussion about lenses. I thought about all your suggestions and some suggestions from other people off the list and I decided I would go with the 24-105L. A very wise photographer asked me the question "Which lens would fit you the best?" So I went through all my Railpictures.Net photos and added them up. I found that nearly 70% of my photos on here would fall under the range of the 24-105L. With that I dug deep to try and find any negative things about the lens, but it was tough. Many people seem to praise that lens. So then I decided that would be the lens that would fit me the best, so I bought. So $1,300 (lens and 5 year warranty) later, I'm being shipped the lens. I should have it ready and available for use on Christmas Day (when it's scheduled to arrive now). I'm hoping to continue to take advantage of my time off and go get some photos.

Again thanks to everyone out there who responded and helped me come to my decision.
__________________
Amtrakdavis22

Flickr

RailPictures.Net
RailVideos.Net

Youtube Videos
Amtrakdavis22.com

"Love the sound of that shutter!" -Peter Lik
Amtrakdavis22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 07:47 PM   #47
Mr. Pick
Senior Member
 
Mr. Pick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 662
Default

Can't go wrong with that choice. Enjoy!
Mr. Pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 09:02 PM   #48
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amtrakdavis22 View Post
A very wise photographer asked me the question "Which lens would fit you the best?" So I went through all my Railpictures.Net photos and added them up. I found that nearly 70% of my photos on here would fall under the range of the 24-105L.
Your choice is just fine, of course, but out of sheer argument I have to disagree with the method.

I note that 0% of your shots fall in the 10-17 range. How do I know? Because your lens set doesn't go wider than 18. So how do you know that a 10-22 would not fit you the best? You haven't even tried most of that range!
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 10:29 PM   #49
Amtrakdavis22
Senior Member
 
Amtrakdavis22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Your choice is just fine, of course, but out of sheer argument I have to disagree with the method.

I note that 0% of your shots fall in the 10-17 range. How do I know? Because your lens set doesn't go wider than 18. So how do you know that a 10-22 would not fit you the best? You haven't even tried most of that range!
Honestly how many occasions have I had the 18mm and wanted it to go wider... very few. In some instances would that focal length be nice... sure. But when I think of the shots I have taken and the ones I want to get, not many fall under that focal length. That's why I thought about it for awhile and then decided to go with the 24-105.
__________________
Amtrakdavis22

Flickr

RailPictures.Net
RailVideos.Net

Youtube Videos
Amtrakdavis22.com

"Love the sound of that shutter!" -Peter Lik
Amtrakdavis22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 01:01 AM   #50
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Not the best comparison.

Do you have any where the same subject was taken with both lenses from the same perspective?
Or on a tripod and not moving it?
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.