DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Much better than I anticipated

Started Dec 4, 2015 | User reviews thread
OP shleed Contributing Member • Posts: 757
Re: Much better than I anticipated
1

Rock and Rollei wrote:

I've had the 17-40 for years, but never been outstandingly happy with it. Stopped down to f8 or f11, and it's really rather good - so it's been great for landscapes, and if that's what someone wants it for, I would recommend it. At wider apertures, it's nothing special. So it's a bit of a one-trick pony; does that trick very nicely, but is not an all-rounder like the 16-35 f4 L IS.

It is certainly for landscape purposes, and IR work. Canon's 16-35mm lenses tend to have severe hotspots in IR, which is a much bigger issue than edge sharpness for me. I couldn't find information on whether the 16-35 f4L IS was good for IR or not. I could have tested, but it's difficult since IR performance varies a lot more than visible light in terms of weather etc.

For normal purposes I'd agree with you and would have got the 16-35 f4L IS instead, mainly for low light work. But again, the type of photography I do often warrants a tripod since exposures can be in the minutes.

 shleed's gear list:shleed's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Irix 11mm F4 +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow