Will this lens be a great difference than the 17-40 f/4 for city night and indoor photography? Im using a 6D.
2074843
I'm not familiar with the lens you are using but the 16-35 is pretty fast. I prefer the 24 mm 1.4 for low light though
2074844
Yes, it will make a difference. Jumping from f4 to f2.8 will help you mainly in one of two ways depending on the nature of your shoot. Either you will be able to drop your ISO to reduce the noise that comes with low-light/high-ISO photography, or you will be able to use a faster shutter to reduce motion blur. That being said, this lens will HELP these problems, but not necessarily eliminate them. It's up to you to decide if the difference is great enough to merit the price. I would suggest renting it or borrowing it to see for yourself. Good luck!
763550
Hi, actaually I have this lens and had the 16-50. I got the nex 6 last year and sold the 16-50 lens because I felt the pics came out better in the 18-55. The focus was better and pics seems crisp to me in 18-55. Yes it's much heavier and the smaller to travel with. 16-50 made it really nice to go our the city with.... But I just couldn't take a good pic with the 16-50. I got the 18-55 for about $100 used. So I'm happy.
794539
It depends on what your use would be. On a full frame camera(nikon d600,800, etc.) the 24 mm focal length is a great landscape lens and the wide maximum aperture makes this lens great in low light. This makes it a great lens for indoors and night shooting as well. However as a portrait lens the 24 mm focal length is not ideal due to the broadening of facial features that occurs on this wide focal length. The 35 mm is somewhat better as a portrait lens especially when used on a crop sensor camera(nikon d5200, 7000, 7100, etc) but doesn't offer the same wide field of view that would be helpful on broad landscapes. It depends on what your use would be. On a full frame camera(nikon d600,800, etc.) the 24 mm focal length is a great landscape lens and the wide maximum aperture makes this lens great in low light. This makes it a great lens for indoors and night shooting as well. However as a portrait lens the 24 mm focal length is not ideal due to the broadening of facial features that occurs on this wide focal length. The 35 mm is somewhat better as a portrait lens especially when used on a crop sensor camera(nikon d5200, 7000, 7100, etc) but doesn't offer the same wide field of view that would be... » Read More It depends on what your use would be. On a full frame camera(nikon d600,800, etc.) the 24 mm focal length is a great landscape lens and the wide maximum aperture makes this lens great in low light. This makes it a great lens for indoors and night shooting as well. However as a portrait lens the 24 mm focal length is not ideal due to the broadening of facial features that occurs on this wide focal length. The 35 mm is somewhat better as a portrait lens especially when used on a crop sensor camera(nikon d5200, 7000, 7100, etc) but doesn't offer the same wide field of view that would be helpful on broad landscapes. « Show Less
2059968
It is an excellent lens for close ups and distances when there is good light environment, but not for low light situations, unless you have a flash. For indoors would be better a f/2.8 lens or less (f/1.2 or 1.4).
385957
I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm, but the 24L is something different. $1100 is worth different things to different people. I found it to be a better focal length on a crop sensor (7D) for general indoor low light shooting.
1364459
This lens is perfect for outdoor but for low light indoor will not be good. I bought me a 70-200 f2.8 lens that will work with the right settings.
1594405
I have never used the 11-16 but did research it before buying this lens. I think you will be quite happy with either one and can't really go wrong. They are both sharp, excellent lenses. In my mind the principal trade off is whether you want a slightly wider angle view (there really is a pretty big difference btwn 12mm and 11mm) and a wider aperture or whether you want the extra versatility on the other end since the 12-28 lens goes up to 28mm. Pics are definitely usable at 28mm in my opinion. Ken Rockwell has a great review of both. The only thing I don't agree with him on with regards to the 12-28mm is that I am noticing some CA that I have to remove in post processing (not a big deal to me but worth noting). I will try to post a few sample pics later today. Hope that helps and happy shooting!
1272577
For a general walk-around lens on a crop camera like the Rebels or 40D, etc, I find that 28mm is just too limited in terms of wide angle. Not very good for shooting a room full of people either. 28mm isn't too bad if you're ONLY shooting people. My recommendation would be to go for the 17-50 and get an image stabilized telephoto for longer shots like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS.
1784426
The lens is great for all around use. Tack sharp and worth every penny. If you plan on moving full frame it's worth it. On a DX body it will act like a 36-105. It's a bit on the weighty side but not over bearing. I have found the images have a certain pop to them that most other lenses can't provide unless they have the nano coating. Your other option is the great 17-55 which is designed for DX cameras. Look online there are some great reviews. If money isn't an issue go for it.
2004641
hi. Do you plan to shoot more weddings or landscapes...? i think it could be the answer of your question. I think about buying this lens too. i am a wedding photographer, and wedding conditions are always dark light situations. So i need the 2.8 aperture. If you are more a nature photographer, so the 2.8 is not so needed. During wedding the IS can't help too much, because the people that you take are dancing, the low speed will be impossible to use, even with IS on.I hope it will hlep you.
760811
Hi xynobis. Both those lenses are excellent. The 17-55 likes to flare when a light source is in the frame, so a hood is a must. Other than that, they both have great AF, IS and produce equally awesome pictures. So I think it's a matter of what you'll be using it for. The 15-85 is ideally suited for sightseeing, and outdoors. It's usually bright outside, so a narrower aperture is fine and this lens is much more civilized when it comes to flare. It also has more reach, and a little more breadth. The 17-55 is much better for indoor/event and evening shooting. I love having both, but I only ever use one at a time, depending on where/what I'm shooting. If I could only have one, it would be the 15-85. I find I can never have enough focal length, and I'm willing to up my ISO a stop or two to get the shutter speed I need.
91517
I bought the lens for shooting night time soccer matches. It is awesome at that. I have moved on to high school basketball and it performs flawlessly there as well. I have used it for one wedding (outside), worked well there too. I think you would be happy, but have not tried in that low of a light situation. Now if you wish to support the lens with a flash of some sort, then there would be no question. My gut tells me you would be fine, but I have nothing to back that up. The lens is great, fast and extremely clear. I am very happy.
608746
I have both of these and they are excellent lenses. This is my profession and it I were to choose go with the 17-70, unless you don't need the extra reach and you mostly work in low light.
1544101
It certainly depends on the size of the room. However, due to the aperture of F8 for this lens, its really not a good choice for indoor shots. Your camera will have to perform really well at high iso.
1580106
This lens is useful in many low light situations. it is like the 50mm 1.4G (only bigger, longer, heavier, sharper and a lot more expensive). Compared to the 50mm 1.4G, it also and requires more light due to the longer focal length. Is it suitable for museum or church or any indoor shoot? Yes. Is it worth the price? That depends. IMHO, 50mm can perform that just as well, except it does not that reach.
2236917
The aperture is 3.5 at 24mm and 5.6 when zooming. It's good for daylight but at night you have to have a steady hand or tripod/monopod since it doesn't let in that much light in full zoom. It's a good lens for the money and helps as an all around lens.
1272576
Thanks! I ended up getting the 17-50 and actually just got back from a trip to NYC. My pictures turned out really well for the big apple and I am very happy I got the 17-50. Taking wide angle shots of the city was fun because this lens gives you the ability to squeeze in plenty of scenery and play with the angles. I plan on getting an additional lens to cover the longer shots such as those you previous listed.