User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  4
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Do I really need F2.8 on 5D Mk III

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    03 Nov 2007
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Do I really need F2.8 on 5D Mk III

    Ok so I'm looking at upgrading to a new 5D MK III hopefully this week and will be getting some new glass to go with, I am looking at the Canon 16-35L F2.8 or 17-40L F4.

    I will be mostly outdoors getting landscape photos and I know F2.8 is not needed for this but I imagine I will be also using the lens for indoor and night time shots occasionally too, trouble is with the price of the F2.8 being twice that of the F4 ($750 difference) is 2.8 really needed on a 5D Mk III for indoor shoots when all reviews of the camera point to much better ISO perfornance, could you simply up the ISO once to get a similar setup to using a F2.8 indoors?

    What do others think?

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Regular livio's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Mar 2012
    Location
    Denham Court
    Posts
    1,580
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Redfox, I would say compromise, if you are only occasionally going to use the lens inside then why not get a prime lens for inside work. I', sure that canon have an equivalent to a 35mm or a 50mm f/1.8 for a couple of hundred dollars. That is still way less than $750 difference and it will be way better to allow you get decent candle lit photographs at birthday parties etc.

    Kind Regards
    Livio

  3. #3
    Shore Crawler Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    redfox, if you're thinking about shooting stars and astrophotography for frozen star images (kind of niche genre shooting) , then the F2.8 is VERY helpful and takes advantage of the high iso capabilities even more. Otherwise, I'd say no, don't bother -I've had very little issue with the 17-40 on the 5dmk2 since we upgraded.
    Call me Dylan! www.everlookphotography.com | www.everlookphotography.wordpress.com | www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh
    Canon EOS 5dmk3 : 17-40 F4 L, 70-200F2.8 canon L, 24-70mm canon L, Gitzo Safari +1178 ballhead. |Canon 5dmkII, 16-35mmF2.8 II L, Gitzo 2541 )
    Singh Ray/Hitech/Lee assorted filters, Z pro modified system Cokin holder
    Post : Lightroom 3.6 catalogue -> Export as 16bit TIFF, Edited CS5 -> resized for web.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2006
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I find the ISO performance on the 7d is excellent. Im sure the 5d3 is way ahead. In saying that f-stop is not always the only thing you get for price. You would have to take other factors into account. In saying that I love the 17-40 and I have taken numerous pictures that you couldnt fault the lens for, nor do I imagine you could recognise a better performance from another lens.
    Using a 7d or a s95
    Advice and Edits welcome
    http://adamrose.wordpress.com/ [/CENTER]

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Jul 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    559
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The thing is though the 16-35mm f/2.8 isn't more expensive than the 17-40 f/4 just because of the wider maximum aperture. It also has better IQ, so better IQ plus wider maximum aperture make it more expensive than the 17-40.

    I bought the 16-35 since UWA is my most used focal lengths and wanted to have the increased IQ. Also I'm usually shooting stuff at f/4 or f/5.6 and not a smaller apertures very often and by stopping the 16-35 down by only a few stops I would still out perform the 17-40 at f/4 or f/5.6.

    If you'll mostly shoot landscapes at smaller apertures say f/11 or f/16 and only rarely shoot indoors at f/4 then just get the 17-40 and buy a nice set of filters to go with your lens with the money you saved.

    Both are regarded as great lenses, as with most gear, it's a depends what you're shooting mostly answer.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Jul 2009
    Location
    Sydney (Sutherland Shire)
    Posts
    106
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yeh id say just grab the 50mm 1.4 along with it, Only $350, sweet everyday run around lens, small and light

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    03 Nov 2007
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sounds like I'll grab the F4, I have a canon 50mm 1.8 (cheapy) so will see how I go. Thanks to everyone here on the thread

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dtoh View Post
    redfox, if you're thinking about shooting stars and astrophotography for frozen star images (kind of niche genre shooting) , then the F2.8 is VERY helpful and takes advantage of the high iso capabilities even more.
    I'll second that. An extra stop meant I could use ISO 1,600 at 30 seconds rather than ISO 3,200.

    At any rate, I'll always take a faster lens over a slower lens, as it gives me more options.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Jan 2009
    Location
    bathurst
    Posts
    623
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    great thread, i have recently sold my project car and now have some money to spend on new camera gear and i was facing the same dilema 5d mkiii with 17-40 or 16-35. and considering all the great night/ astro photos with the milky way present i think i will have to go with the 16-35

    but another thing is it worth while forting out the extra money to get the mkiii over the mkii?
    Canon 5D MKiii / Sony A7Rii / Canon 16-35mm f 4 L /Canon EF 24-70mm f-2.8 L USM / Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM / SIGMA 50mm F14. ART


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2012
    Location
    Northern Beaches
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by harper View Post
    great thread, i have recently sold my project car and now have some money to spend on new camera gear and i was facing the same dilema 5d mkiii with 17-40 or 16-35. and considering all the great night/ astro photos with the milky way present i think i will have to go with the 16-35

    but another thing is it worth while forting out the extra money to get the mkiii over the mkii?
    Congrats on the the 16-35 purchase.

    Re the 5D2 vs 5D3, if you want the extra low light capability, absolutely no question. YES

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jul 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One thing to consider is whether you wish to use filter systems, such as the Lee Filters kit to take landscape shots using either the 17-40 or the 16-35 lens. The 17-40 F4L Canon takes a 77mm wide angle ring for the Lee system, whereas the the 16-35mm F2.8L takes an 82mm ring. The 77mm diameter for lenses is quite common whereas the 82mm is quite rare. Thus you'll find it easier to re-use filters from the 17-40 than you would the 16-35.

    I recognise that this is a small (and perhaps obscure) consideration, but it may affect your decision. It did affect mine.

    Anakha

  12. #12
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,651
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    One more thing to consider. Autofocus systems work with the lens wide open. So an f2.8 lens is more likely to lock on under challenging focusing instances than an f4 lens. The lens only steps down to the chosen aperture at the moment of pressing the shutter button. So if the cost is not a consideration, and you shoot under challenging lighting situations a lot, then there are advantages to having f2.8, that do not relate to the actual aperture used for the taking of the photos (as such)
    Last edited by ricktas; 19-08-2012 at 8:34pm.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •