17-24 vs 16-35?

irishguy0224 · Oct 28, 2012

Alright, i am going to bite the bullet and get some new glass in the the near future. I have been looking used on here forever, but haven't seen anything that interests me.

A little background on what i shoot would be I primarily shoot people, family portraits, children pics, wedding photos and cars. I normally shoot a 50mm f1.8 for most things but am looking for something new. I love primes, but am thinking a nice zoom would be a good addition to my bag.

So, i am asking you all what do you think? I am interested in the 17-24 F4 or the 16-35 F2.8. The only thing that worries me about the 17-24 is the fact that it IS f4 and i fear i will loose some of the sharpness i am looking for. Anyone have any thoughts? OR is there another lens you think I should look for?

I am shooting a 5d for reference.

ColeGauthier · Oct 29, 2012

If I were you I wouldn't be looking at those wide angle lenses at all, you will have way too much lens distortion since your first three categories you mentioned will be people. I would look at 70-200mm, preferably the IS MK ii.

fjrabon · Oct 29, 2012

The Canon 28-135 is a great value lens. Outside of the plastic-y build, zoom travel and being prone to flare outside I've always loved its image quality. If I only shot people in a posed setting I could be happy with that being my only lens.

What a lens' minimum aperture is has almost nothing to do with how sharp it is.

The 70-200 mkII is, IMHO, the best overall lens of any length from any company on the market today. So, if you can afford that, yeah, it's amazing.

irishguy0224 · Oct 29, 2012

ColeGauthier said:
If I were you I wouldn't be looking at those wide angle lenses at all, you will have way too much lens distortion since your first three categories you mentioned will be people. I would look at 70-200mm, preferably the IS MK ii.

out of all the pictures i have been looking at taken with both of the lenses, i didn't really notice any distortion... although i know that CAN happen with wide angle lenses. I guess, i wanted to break the mold on the typical 70-200 lol. Any other lens?

fjrabon said:
The Canon 28-135 is a great value lens. Outside of the plastic-y build, zoom travel and being prone to flare outside I've always loved its image quality. If I only shot people in a posed setting I could be happy with that being my only lens.

What a lens' minimum aperture is has almost nothing to do with how sharp it is.

The 70-200 mkII is, IMHO, the best overall lens of any length from any company on the market today. So, if you can afford that, yeah, it's amazing.

Ya, i have played with them before, they are nice lenses for sure!

PlanetStarbucks · Oct 30, 2012

irishguy0224 said:
out of all the pictures i have been looking at taken with both of the lenses, i didn't really notice any distortion... although i know that CAN happen with wide angle lenses. I guess, i wanted to break the mold on the typical 70-200 lol. Any other lens?

Even without barrel distortion or pincushion distortion, different focal lengths do affect the shape of a person. People tend to look best at longer focal lengths.

The Ideal Focal Length for Portraiture: A Photographer's Experiment

Big Mike · Oct 30, 2012

I assume you mean the 17-40mm F4 when you say 17-24mm? :scratch:

Big Mike · Oct 30, 2012

PlanetStarbucks said:
irishguy0224 said:

out of all the pictures i have been looking at taken with both of the lenses, i didn't really notice any distortion... although i know that CAN happen with wide angle lenses. I guess, i wanted to break the mold on the typical 70-200 lol. Any other lens?

Click to expand...

Even without barrel distortion or pincushion distortion, different focal lengths do affect the shape of a person. People tend to look best at longer focal lengths.

The Ideal Focal Length for Portraiture: A Photographer's Experiment

It's actually the distance to the subject that makes the difference, not the focal length. But it just so happens that when you use a longer lens, you get further away.

PlanetStarbucks · Oct 30, 2012

Big Mike said:
It's actually the distance to the subject that makes the difference, not the focal length. But it just so happens that when you use a longer lens, you get further away.

But if you're framing the subject in the same way, then both focal length and distance are changing. I think we're both saying the same thing, just in different ways. It's really more about the relative position and perspective that causes the facial distortion.