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

[Redfox]

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?

[livio]

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

[Dylan & Marianne]

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.

[AdamR]

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.

[mikec]

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.

[macdog]

yeh id say just grab the 50mm 1.4 along with it, Only $350, sweet everyday run around lens, small and light

[Redfox]

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

[Xenedis]

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.

[harper]

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 :D

but another thing is it worth while forting out the extra money to get the mkiii over the mkii?

[Ventureoverland]

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 :D

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

[anakha]

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

[ricktas]

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)