Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Canon 17-40 or 16-35ii Zen Nauticam


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 mdex73

mdex73

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2013 - 05:38 PM

Will the 16-35 give me dramatically better results or slightly better than the 17-40. My wife is using a 5d mark3 in a Nauticam housing behind a Zen 230 dome?


Edited by mdex73, 25 July 2013 - 05:43 PM.


#2 Drew

Drew

    The Controller

  • Video Expert
  • 10595 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:GPS is not reliable in South East Asian seas

Posted 27 July 2013 - 12:58 AM

If you want quantifiable differences, I'd say it's in the 10-30% better in corners,  especially on the wide end wide open, and about 5-10% better in overall resolution. It's significantly noticeable on some pics, not so big a difference in others.  

There's more distortion with the 17-40.

If budget is an issue, you may wish to check out the Tokina 16-28.  I really liked this lens @ 16mm.  Corners were a bit sharper than the 16-35II throughout to F16.  It has more CA and focused slower.  Biggest problem was QC.  I tested 3 copies before I found one that had consistent results.  YMMV.  Not a lens I'd buy online.


Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.


#3 AndyBarker

AndyBarker

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bury St Edmunds Suffolk UK
  • Interests:Diving , Photography , Fishing ,

Posted 27 July 2013 - 11:03 PM

Hi you may find the 16/28 from tokina very heavy I was looking at this lens but in the end got the 16/35 Nikon.
Regards,
Andy

Andy Barker
D800, Seacam,S45, Nikon 60mm micro, Nikon VR 105mm micro, Nikon 16x35mm, Nikon 16mm, fe, Seaflash 150ttl & Seacam flash arms


#4 mdex73

mdex73

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 July 2013 - 05:41 AM

Is the canon 16-35 dramatically better than the 17-40?

#5 Cary Dean

Cary Dean

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:41 PM

Is the canon 16-35 dramatically better than the 17-40?

Both are great lenses. I've shot the 17-40 and own the 16-35 II.

I wouldn't say dramatically better but slightly better. The advantage

in my opinion (there are probably a few actually) is that you have more

light to focus with with a native 2.8 lens than you do with an 4.0 which

results in faster AF all other things being equal. I found the Zen 230 to

be a great match for either lens with the correct port extension ring.


"The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever."
Jacques Yves Cousteau