Considering a 17-40L....questions!

Hello!
Recently picked up a 6D, and i'm loving it. I love the 24-105 and I'm really impressed by the low-light performance of the 6D. I still have my t3i which I love, and one of my favorite lenses is the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8, which is made for APS-C, so it's really only useful on FF at 16mm. I could keep it and very rarely use it on the t3i, or I could sell it and add a bit more to upgrade to a 17-40 for the 6D, but I have a couple of questions.

-My hopes for my next lens:

• Wide enough to shoot interiors well. I do occasional interior photography and want something sharp and reliable. The Tokina was great for this.
• Sharp enough for portraits at 40mm. (Had another thread recently where I got a bum Sigma 50/1.4 that I was hoping might fit this bill, but instead just got a full refund.)
• Solid wide-angle performance for video and glidecam work.
• Occasional low-to-mid-light group shots at parties and events.

-Questions

1. Is it decent for portrait work?
2. Any experience with video work? I know wide angle lenses are generally pretty solid, but perhaps I can hear first-hand from someone who has worked with this lens.
3. Does the 6D's low-light performance compensate for the 3 stops in aperture over the Tokina? On my t3i, if I was shooting anything over 1000 ISO, the shots were pretty noisy. But with the 24-105 I can pretty much shoot into a dark corridor and shots still come out okay at 12,000 ISO. So I would assume it would be fine...
4. If you don't recommend this lens for the above-stated goals, do you have another lens or pair of lenses that you would recommend for a similar price? Another option would be to just keep the Tokina and always use it at 16mm, then get a nifty fifty or pancake 40 or something. Though the last nifty fifty I had didn't focus right all the time, so that worries me a bit. Also, I need fast-focus!

Any first-hand experience or input would be great! Thanks!

TreInJapan wrote:

Hello!
Recently picked up a 6D, and i'm loving it. I love the 24-105 and I'm really impressed by the low-light performance of the 6D. I still have my t3i which I love, and one of my favorite lenses is the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8, which is made for APS-C, so it's really only useful on FF at 16mm. I could keep it and very rarely use it on the t3i, or I could sell it and add a bit more to upgrade to a 17-40 for the 6D, but I have a couple of questions.

-My hopes for my next lens:

• Wide enough to shoot interiors well. I do occasional interior photography and want something sharp and reliable. The Tokina was great for this.
• Sharp enough for portraits at 40mm. (Had another thread recently where I got a bum Sigma 50/1.4 that I was hoping might fit this bill, but instead just got a full refund.)
• Solid wide-angle performance for video and glidecam work.
• Occasional low-to-mid-light group shots at parties and events.

-Questions

1. Is it decent for portrait work?
2. Any experience with video work? I know wide angle lenses are generally pretty solid, but perhaps I can hear first-hand from someone who has worked with this lens.
3. Does the 6D's low-light performance compensate for the 3 stops in aperture over the Tokina? On my t3i, if I was shooting anything over 1000 ISO, the shots were pretty noisy. But with the 24-105 I can pretty much shoot into a dark corridor and shots still come out okay at 12,000 ISO. So I would assume it would be fine...

Any first-hand experience or input would be great! Thanks!

1.  I wouldn't choose 40mm for portraits, generally.  For single person portraits you'll want a focal length that doesn't distort features, which is typically 85-135mm range on the 6D.  You can take wide angle portraits, of course, but I wouldn't use it as my main portrait lens.

2.  I've not used this lens for video, sorry, but the 16-35 f4L IS would be a better choice as it's stabilized.  It's true that most ultra wides are fine for video due to the wide FOV resulting if a pretty steady shot, but 40mm isn't super wide, at that FL IS is quite nice for video.

3.  3 stops??? Where do you get that figure?  f2.8 vs f4 is 1 stop.  And yes, it is more than offset by the ISO performance difference between the t3i and the 6d.

If you can swing it the new 16-35 f4L IS is a no brainer for ultra wide in Canon land now, but if you are looking for a more affordable option, I would point you towards the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 as it's a much better performer than the 17-40L, though with a few drawbacks...weight, occasional rainbow flare, bulb front element makes filters tougher to use.  But for 600$ it's hard to beat, in my opinion, it's great for interiors unless you wanted to move to a tilt shift lens.

TreInJapan wrote:

Thanks a lot Keith!

-Do you think the 24-105 that I already have is better for portraits than the 17-40? And then how about compared to a cheap 50 or 85mm?

I don't think I can swing the 16-35 as it is about 50% more than the 17-40. The Tokina 16-28 F2.8 looks great too, but I don't know if it will satisfy my requirements to take decent portraits...unless of course the 24-105 can do that already

Of course the 24-105 does that!    And yes, it would be better than an UWA lens.  The 24-105 is a good lens, weakest on the wide side, which is why an overlapping UWA there makes some sense if you don't mind carrying both around.  The beauty of the 24-105 is in it's versatility.

The 85 f1.8 is a very well regarded lens for portrait photography, and quite inexpensive.  I use the Sigma 50 f1.4 ex, Canon 70-200 f4 and the Canon 135L f2 for most of my portrait efforts, but the 24-105 certainly gets its fair share as well.  There are many pro photographers who use the 24-105 for studio portraiture.  The advantages of the primes are generally sharper images and the ability to use thin depth of field for subject isolation when you want.  But on a 6D you can achieve pretty good subject isolation even at f4 @ 105mm with good center sharpness.  When shooting in more controlled situations you don't need to worry about that so much anyway...just stop down the lens and have at it.

Here are a couple of portraits with the 24-105, some with studio lighting and some more PJ style.

TreInJapan wrote:

Hello!
Recently picked up a 6D, and i'm loving it. I love the 24-105 and I'm really impressed by the low-light performance of the 6D. I still have my t3i which I love, and one of my favorite lenses is the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8, which is made for APS-C, so it's really only useful on FF at 16mm. I could keep it and very rarely use it on the t3i, or I could sell it and add a bit more to upgrade to a 17-40 for the 6D, but I have a couple of questions.

-My hopes for my next lens:

• Wide enough to shoot interiors well. I do occasional interior photography and want something sharp and reliable. The Tokina was great for this.

This will have a similar wide range as your 11-16 on the 6D, but go much longer of course.

• Sharp enough for portraits at 40mm. (Had another thread recently where I got a bum Sigma 50/1.4 that I was hoping might fit this bill, but instead just got a full refund.)

Not the best choice, but it could work in a pinch.

• Solid wide-angle performance for video and glidecam work.

Yes, it works great this way. I've shot LOTS of video using a steady-cam. I can't tell any difference between this and my 16-35 used this way.

• Occasional low-to-mid-light group shots at parties and events.

On a 6D? F4 is not an issue.

-Questions

1. Is it decent for portrait work?

Nope - but if you're shooting lots of people, sure.

1. Any experience with video work? I know wide angle lenses are generally pretty solid, but perhaps I can hear first-hand from someone who has worked with this lens.

I use this lens, the 16-35 and Rokinon 14/2.8 for all of my steady-cam type work. The 17-40 has been my workhorse lens for a year.

1. Does the 6D's low-light performance compensate for the 3 stops in aperture over the Tokina? On my t3i, if I was shooting anything over 1000 ISO, the shots were pretty noisy. But with the 24-105 I can pretty much shoot into a dark corridor and shots still come out okay at 12,000 ISO. So I would assume it would be fine...

I think this already got answered - 3 stops isn't what you've got - what you've got is basically the same thing. f2.8 is about the same as f4 on the 6D. The 6D is the first camera I've had where I'll leave it on auto ISO in most conditions. I couldn't really go over 800 with my 60D, and didn't even like that. 12400 is a bit much on the 6D (which is crazy high!), but passable - I've done it frequently if I have to stick with a shutter speed but try to avoid it. 800-1600 looks like 200-400 on the 60D.

1. If you don't recommend this lens for the above-stated goals, do you have another lens or pair of lenses that you would recommend for a similar price? Another option would be to just keep the Tokina and always use it at 16mm, then get a nifty fifty or pancake 40 or something. Though the last nifty fifty I had didn't focus right all the time, so that worries me a bit. Also, I need fast-focus!

Just to summarize, I have both the 17-40 and new 16-35. While the 16-35 is obviously a superior lens, it can be a question mark for a lot of people. I've still not been able to part with my 17-40 - it's an excellent little lens. But, I probably should as the 16-35 is a perfect replacement.

My main purpose for UWA's is interior/architecture/real estate photography. But of course, they're invaluable for landscapes as well. As has already been answered, not a particularly good choice for portraits, even at 40, unless you've got a bunch of people!

I have shot lots of video using the lens. Yes, it's nice to have stabilization, but depending on how you're doing it - it really doesn't make much difference. I've used it almost exclusively handheld, and using a steady-cam. Honestly, I haven't been able to see much difference between it and the stabilized lenses going this way. Off the steady-cam, yeah, you can see it. But typically, I'm steady-cam, some cage (not much), or on a tripod with a longer lens.

I've posted lots of comparison shots between the 16-35 and 17-40, but it really sounds like ultimate corner resolution is not that important to you - so save the money!

Any first-hand experience or input would be great! Thanks!

TreInJapan wrote:

Hello!
Recently picked up a 6D, and i'm loving it. I love the 24-105 and I'm really impressed by the low-light performance of the 6D. I still have my t3i which I love, and one of my favorite lenses is the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8, which is made for APS-C, so it's really only useful on FF at 16mm. I could keep it and very rarely use it on the t3i, or I could sell it and add a bit more to upgrade to a 17-40 for the 6D, but I have a couple of questions.

-My hopes for my next lens:

• Wide enough to shoot interiors well. I do occasional interior photography and want something sharp and reliable. The Tokina was great for this.
• Sharp enough for portraits at 40mm. (Had another thread recently where I got a bum Sigma 50/1.4 that I was hoping might fit this bill, but instead just got a full refund.)
• Solid wide-angle performance for video and glidecam work.
• Occasional low-to-mid-light group shots at parties and events.

-Questions

1. Is it decent for portrait work?
2. Any experience with video work? I know wide angle lenses are generally pretty solid, but perhaps I can hear first-hand from someone who has worked with this lens.
3. Does the 6D's low-light performance compensate for the 3 stops in aperture over the Tokina? On my t3i, if I was shooting anything over 1000 ISO, the shots were pretty noisy. But with the 24-105 I can pretty much shoot into a dark corridor and shots still come out okay at 12,000 ISO. So I would assume it would be fine...
4. If you don't recommend this lens for the above-stated goals, do you have another lens or pair of lenses that you would recommend for a similar price? Another option would be to just keep the Tokina and always use it at 16mm, then get a nifty fifty or pancake 40 or something. Though the last nifty fifty I had didn't focus right all the time, so that worries me a bit. Also, I need fast-focus!

Any first-hand experience or input would be great! Thanks!

I use the 17-40 extensively for commissioned architectural work.  It is quite good for this with three caveats:  stop down to f11, proper manual focusing, distortion correction in software.  With these met it performs admirably.  17mm is the weakest setting but still very good.  The majority of the shots on my website below were taken with this lens.  Replacing it with something better is a low priority item.

As for portraits, sure it will work.  The center is sharp at any aperture and focal length (on a good copy).  f4 will not give you much background blur at wide angles unless you are right in the subject's face.  But then, even f1.4 is tough to truly blur a background at UWA unless you are very close to the subject.

For event type portraits (group shots, full body) it's a good lens.  You'll often need f4 just to get everybody in focus.  I find it great at wedding reception.

If you have kids, UWA zooms are fun for portraits.  Set it wide and stick the lens right in their face and you can get some great perspectives.

Don't use the 17-40 for portraits unless its a large group. Use 85- 105 for 6D. 85 1.8 or 100L macro would be good for portraits or macro. 17-40 will be about the same as the Tokina when you consider the crop factor. I have the 17-40 and Sigma 12-24 for wide angle and the Sigma gets a little "out-of-round" at 12mm. Sorry but I can't think of a better term but it's kind of tending toward the fisheye effect.

I love the 6D and also have the 7D. Maybe keep the crop setup unless you need higher ISO.

Kent

I was not responding to your comment. I was making a statement about using WA lenses for portraits.

Kent

Many of the OP's questions have been answered, notably the 24-105 (or longer prime) would be better for portraits. It sounds like the 17-40 would be an excellent complimentary lens for you as the <24mm range is really critical to many shooters including myself. It would do interiors well (obviously is not the Canon TS-E 17). There are not many affordable FF alternates and the 17-40 is a quality FF lens that is reasonably affordable (or close to the price/performance). The AF & MF works great and should have no trouble with video.

Having just taken a trip with the 6D, 24-105L and 16-35II, I can tell you 51% of the shots were 24mm or wider and this would have jumped ~10-20% except the 16-35 was not readily available when we unexpectedly had a photo opportunity. So if UWA is indispensable and $ is not unlimited the 17-40 is a great FF choice.