# Lens Help: 16-35mm or 17-40mm for video?



## iseowl (Jul 28, 2012)

So long story short I'm getting money to buy a 5D3. My kit at the moment comprises of a 600D with battery grip, 24-105L & the plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8.

I'm still new to photography/videography & I mainly do video work which involve filming events like the occasionally gig if I'm lucky but I film monthly fashion shows which take place at different night clubs, where I also film interviews of the designers.

As I would use the 24-105 with the 5D3 when I get it, ideally I would like another lens to use on my 600D and I am leaning towards getting a wide angle (zoom) lens which I could use on both bodies.

So my choices are narrowed down to the 16-35mm L F2.8 or 17-40mm L F4. And I'm just wondering which is the better lens? or if there are any better prime alternatives.

Thank you in advance for your help.


----------



## Policar (Jul 28, 2012)

I'm not wild about the 17-40mm, which has a lot of distortion and corner sharpness/backfocus issues, but it's a nice lens ergonomically and the focal length is useful if you have to get super wide.

The 11-16mm Tokina is rather wonderful for APS-C and you can use it (but with soft corners) at 16mm on the 5D. Contrary to popular opinion, the corners are really very soft with it on the 5D unless you stop down to f8--worse than with the 17-40mm L, but it's a great lens on APS-C and useable as an UWA for FF.

I am extremely fond of the 14mm f2.8 II L, but the cost is high and it's so wide it plays like an effect. Super wide, great contrast and sharpness, and minimal distortion, what's not to like (well, the focal length if you don't want it).

There are lots of affordable third party options, too. The 17-40mm can take filters and is weather sealed, so while that doesn't seem important, it can make it an easier choice.


----------



## syder (Jul 28, 2012)

Policar said:


> I am extremely fond of the 14mm f2.8 II L, but the cost is high and it's so wide it plays like an effect. Super wide, great contrast and sharpness, and minimal distortion, what's not to like (well, the focal length if you don't want it).



For video its hard to see why you'd spend all that cash on the canon 14mm when you can pick up a manual samyang 14mm f2.8 for a fraction of the price. The difference would let you also pick up the 17-40L and upgrade your 50mm.

I second the comment that the Tokina 11-16 is an excellent lens on aps-c, and it's fairly decent as a 16mm f2.8 on a 5d.


----------



## syder (Jul 28, 2012)

iseowl said:


> I'm still new to photography/videography & I mainly do video work which involve filming events like the occasionally gig if I'm lucky but I film monthly fashion shows which take place at different night clubs, where I also film interviews of the designers...
> 
> So my choices are narrowed down to the 16-35mm L F2.8 or 17-40mm L F4. And I'm just wondering which is the better lens? or if there are any better prime alternatives.



The 16-35 is a better lens hands down - and if you're working in clubs the extra stop might be quite useful. TBH for that kind of event documentary work you're likely better with the versatility of a zoom... Though the Tokina 11-16 is about 1/3rd of the price of the 16-35... and 16mm on aps-c isn't that wide.

Also if I were you I'd be thinking about an interview lens - the 24-105 isn't exactly great, especially in a nightclub, and the 50 1.8 is a nightmare for video (tiny focus ring with minimal travel). Canon or Sigma 50 1.4 would be a huge improvement


----------



## Policar (Jul 29, 2012)

syder said:


> For video its hard to see why you'd spend all that cash on the canon 14mm when you can pick up a manual samyang 14mm f2.8 for a fraction of the price. The difference would let you also pick up the 17-40L and upgrade your 50mm.



Because, although the Samyang has great resolution and contrast, it has a ton of mustache distortion, which renders it useless for anything with straight lines. For stills it's okay if you can fix the distortion later, but for video it's really hard to use for interior spaces or anywhere there are straight lines, imo. It's a nice lens otherwise. The Canon has virtually no distortion.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 29, 2012)

If you are going to be shooting FF and APS-C then it makes sense to me that every lens you use should work on both cameras.

Therfore, forget the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. I have this lens and love it, but I'm shooting exclusively APS-C.
It was never designed to be used on FF and so is wraught with compromises. You are better buying a fixed focal fast UWA prime instead.

I used to own the 17-40 and loved the focus speed and build quality. Images were really so-so. To point where when i got a 550D with kit lens, I actually found myself using the kit 18-55 more and eventually sold the 17-40.

This is more a reflection on how much the IS version of the kit lens has improved over the original versions than a particular sleight on the 17-40.

But thats for stills.

For video you have less control over the shutter speed, as such you are more dependent on filtration and aperture to control exposure than with stills. It makes sense to buy as versatile a lens as you can, and this means as fast an aperture as you can. In a choice between an f4 and an f2.8 the f2.8 is always going to win.

It is a lot more money, so consider used... look out for a 16-35L mk1, or a 17-35 f2.8L or even a 20-35 f2.8L

All going to tick the UWA box for your full frame and serve as a decent fast walkaround for the APS-C camera.

The 17-35 and 20-35's are a bit older now, and aren't all that common, but they do come up used and the resolving power of these lenses is certainly up to 1080 video.

If you really want to buy new then look at something like the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8. Will work on both FF and APS-C and is considerably less expensive than a new Canon 16-35 II.


----------



## risc32 (Jul 30, 2012)

so you are planning on using the 24-105 on the 5d, but you feel that you want something even wider. wider for what, the crop frame camera, or the 5d or both? are you sure 24mm on FF isn't wide enough for you? is f4 fast enough? want to loose IS to go wider/faster? Personally if i was in a dark enviro doing interviews with your gear i'd think about a 50mm 1.4 and or lights. ... since you have the 50mm 1.8 probably lights. yeah, i probably didn't help you any. sorry.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 31, 2012)

rotolights are great for close interview work, & cheap. Ish. Great for the subject.


----------



## iseowl (Aug 8, 2012)

I decided I'm going to buy some L primes instead. Thank for the comments & suggestions.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 8, 2012)

I'd go 16-36 over the 17-40 (I have the 17-40), on FF the corners can be pretty soft, especially wide open. From everything I've seen online, the 16-35 is much better in that regard, and also opens up an extra stop so you can get more light.


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 8, 2012)

16-35mm for sure, especially if you do a lot of low-light shooting. It's sharp, versatile, and as fast as zooms get. Someone else mentioned the 14LII, which is a stellar lens but way more expensive and not near as versatile (and can be too wide in some situations). I have both and love them both in different ways, but honestly if I had to get rid of one of my lenses the 14mm would probably be the first to go.


----------



## DArora (Aug 8, 2012)

If you need to use the new lens for videos, I would pick the faster one, i.e. 16-35 f/2.8L II in this case. My understanding is that generally 20-35 mm is a good focal length for most videos and this focal length will be covered by 16-35L. 
14L is definitely a great lens but it might be too wide for videos.


----------



## Vitruvius (Aug 22, 2012)

If you want wide and you are going to use it on the 600D which has a 1.6 crop factor then why not go with the Canon EF-S 10-22? It has very high image quality for the price and then you would actually have a 24-105 on the 5Dmk3 and a true 'wide' 16-35mm lens on the 600D.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm


----------

