16-35 f2.8 vs 17-40 f4 + 35mm f1.4

[futureal33]

Afternoon all!

Currently, I own the 17-40mm f4L lens, and recently purchased the Canon 35mm f1.4 lens. I have owned the 17-40L for ages, and love it, but realise its limitations wide open, and also realise that f4 is pretty slow - especially for weddings.

Now, I am shooting weddings and christenings with 2 Canon 5D bodies, generally I will have a wide lens on one, and a not so wide lens on the other - but change this throughout the day.

While I like the 35mm 1.4 lens, and only got it a week ago, this weekend I shot a wedding and a christening, and used the 35mm as much as I could - yet none of the shots made it as keepers, and tbh although shot at 1.4 the DOF didn't appear that much less than my 24-70 @ 2.8 - not enough to warrant a lot of money invested in another lens which the 24-70 could do almost as well IMO.

So I got to thinking, that I find F4 too slow on my 17-40 and 1.4 on the 35 to not be too dissimilar to 2.8 on my 24-70mm - so would a 16-35 2.8 be the ideal answer?

I've only had the 35mm a matter of days so maybe Im rushing it a little bit, but usually I know straight away whether I like something or not, and so far I've not been blown away..

Anyone else been in this situation?

Thanks

 

[woof woof]

While I like the 35mm 1.4 lens, and only got it a week ago, this weekend I shot a wedding and a christening, and used the 35mm as much as I could - yet none of the shots made it as keepers, and tbh although shot at 1.4 the DOF didn't appear that much less than my 24-70 @ 2.8 - not enough to warrant a lot of money invested in another lens which the 24-70 could do almost as well IMO.

I've found that the actual DoF differences between f1.4 and f2.8 aren't as great as you'd think but the advantage is there for shutter speed and the ability to shoot with lower ISO's. If shutter speed and ISO setting aren't that critical then the minimal DoF difference probably isn't worth it, unless fighting for every possible benefit with a smaller format.

As you're not using a smaller format I think I'd agree with your thoughts and go for the f2.8 zoom, if shutter speed and ISO are not critical. I assume also that you'll have a f1.4 available for the odd time that they do matter.

 

[futureal33]

I've found that the actual DoF differences between f1.4 and f2.8 aren't as great as you'd think but the advantage is there for shutter speed and the ability to shoot with lower ISO's. If shutter speed and ISO setting aren't that critical then the minimal DoF difference probably isn't worth it, unless fighting for every possible benefit with a smaller format.

As you're not using a smaller format I think I'd agree with your thoughts and go for the f2.8 zoom, if shutter speed and ISO are not critical. I assume also that you'll have a f1.4 available for the odd time that they do matter.

The thing that confuses / worries me most, is that if you google for sample images of 35L shots, most often they are of one of the following

1) Flowers
2) Street Photography
3) Portraits (usually quite tight headshots, which seems odd given the FL)

2 out of those 3 things are of little interest to me, and I have lenses which (IMO) are more dedicated portrait lenses such as the 85/1.4 and 135L.

That leaves me where I am now, wondering where the 35L sits in terms of what its best use is to me.

I love the idea of a general purpose lens, ie, one which I could stick on my 5D and just go out, and take quality pictures with - but in reality that never happens - I nearly always have an objective in mind when I pick my camera up, and normally its either wide angle or portraits.

Dont get me wrong, I want to love this lens - it certainly performs well, lovely bokeh, sharp wide open, perfect size etc...

 

[woof woof]

Maybe these days... and as that fountain of Knowledge ken Rockwell has said... the role of fast primes is diminishing as cameras these days perform much better at higher ISO's.

If you discount to some extent the arguably minimal DoF control advantages of f1.4 over f2.8 and the advantages wider apertures offer for shutter speed and ISO then what you are left with is a possible sharpness advantage for pixel peepers (as a f1.4 prime is probably going to be sharper at f2.8 than a zoom is going to be,) possibly less distortion/aberration, possibly some difference in bokeh rendering and size and weight savings.

If a fast 35mm lens has any real advantages over a f2.8 zoom covering the same length will then take some thinking about. Personally I'd probably go for the prime as I like primes, but no one is paying me and I'm under no pressure so I can understand why anyone would select the more flexible and very probably perfectly good enough zoom as long as the bulk and weight isn't an issue and a fast prime is available for the odd dingy venue when there will be a real advantage in using it.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I can see how f/1.4 is very useful for weddings, and 35mm is great length for reception and maybe in the church... 24-70 is sharper wide open than 16-35 from what I hear so it's really down to how much you need 16/20mm f/2.8 vs 35/1.4. Saying that 17-40 is my least favourite lens due to corners.

 

[hiphopopotamus]

To shoot weddings I've used a 35mm f2 and later on for outdoor portraits I've used either a 100mm 2.8 or a 70-200f4. I've occasionally tried the 70-200f4 inside the wedding venue with iso as high as I'm happy to go, but get a lot of blurred shots that just need to be chucked. So Im guessing a 17-40 isn't perfect indoors either. But I am also like you, with the 35mm it is often difficult to find yourself in the right place indoors during a wedding ceremony. So if money wasnt a limiting factor for me, the 16-35 f2.8 would be where I head straight away, seems like the perfect wedding venue lens. And if you don't have much other use for the 35mm f1.4 I'm sure that would go a long way to funding it. Having said that, I know it's probably difficult to part with a lens like that given how good it is when you get the shot you want - I refuse to sell my 100mm f2.8 for that reason. If you do decide to move to the 16-35, keep me in mind, I'm actually looking to pick up a 17-40 for everyday use at the moment.