Considering: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by mrmacedonian, Sep 1, 2010.

  1. mrmacedonian

    mrmacedonian TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hey all, I've been saving pennies.. a lot of pennies.. since I picked up the 50D and I've been considering getting my first piece of L glass. I've purchased two lenses (one I used to use on my Rebel XTi) and since then have rented a few and after using even the 50mm f/1.4 and especially after the 70-200mm f/2.8L that I wouldn't spend any more money on in-between lenses and that I would either have the L-series for that range or make due without it until I can. This brings me to the 16-35mm f/2.8L. I really enjoy wide angle lenses and believe this is the right lens for me.

    I've read reviews on B&H, Amazon, DPReview.com (they only have data), but I would like some first hand experience from individuals on this forum if anyone has come across this lens. I don't see it mentioned often nor do I see it much in the sig-gear-lists so I thought I'd see if I'm missing something that should make me reconsider this choice. So if you're used this lens drop a line both good and bad and any other directions I should go instead so I don't waste my pennies.

    Thanks for reading.
     
  2. Peanuts

    Peanuts TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,905
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I would care to say it is one of the best zoom lenses out there. I personally shoot all primes but have shot it in the past and have had the opportunity to compare it to the 17-40 and the quality difference is astoundingly better. Probably doesn't help much but I do believe it would be a worthwhile purchase to help round out your gear :)
     
  3. mrmacedonian

    mrmacedonian TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    No actually quite helpful! I prefer primes even though I don't have much gear I have rented and borrowed more primes than zooms and my 50mm hasn't left my body, so it's helpful to get an opinion from someone coming from that perspective in addition to someone with more photography experience. Also I was particularly interested in the comparison of this to the 17-40mm, so yeah you've covered a lot of my concerns! :D

    Thanks for the input!
     
  4. FidelCastrovich

    FidelCastrovich TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Israel
    Is there a particular reason you're interested in the 16-35? It's a great lens, no doubt, but it certainly loses some of its luster on a crop sensor.
    Why not consider the spectacular, and very useful, 17-55 f2.8? Or, if you're looking for the equivalent of the 16-35 on a crop sensor: the 10-22 which is also very, very nice.

    Is there an upgrade to FF in your near future?

    P.S. The 16-35 MK II is a great lens with great optics, great range and great construction. If you've done your homework and are really interested in it then look no further - you can't go wrong.
     
  5. bigtwinky

    bigtwinky No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,820
    Likes Received:
    285
    Location:
    Montreal
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Why the 16-35 is a really great lens. I've rented noe a few times and have borrowed one from a friend and the lens is top quality.

    16-35 is not ultra wide, but again, when I shoot with my 10-22, I'm often in the 14-18 range.

    Its on my list of purchases, but I'm going with the 24-70 as my next lens.
     
  6. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,817
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I agree with the last couple replies...in that I think you should be very certain that this is the lens you want.

    As mentioned, it's not really ultra wide on your crop sensor, it's just a normal range lens...and stopping at 35mm, it might be fairly limited in that role. You might well consider the 17-55mm F2.8 IS, which is said by all, to be give suburb image quality (on par with L)...it just doesn't get the L moniker because it's an EF-S lens.

    I also agree that the EF-S 10-22mm is a fantastic lens. Also said by some to be up to par with some L lenses...and this one will truly give you that ultra wide angle of view.

    Still, the 16-35mm make have the edge in image quality...but you really pay a lot for that.

    Of course, if you are planning a move to full frame, then certainly stick with full frame lenses like the 16-35mm.
     
  7. mrmacedonian

    mrmacedonian TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Yeah I understand the drawbacks to using it on a crop sensor. My plan is to take the next 3-5 years (yeah, I'm a long term planning kind of person..) acquire this 16-35/2.8, the 24-70/2.8, as well as the 70-200/2.8. The reason I've opt'd for this lens first is because I've found with my 18-270/3.5-6.3 that i'm generally shooting at 18 or >150, lol. The Tamron lens is great for a day on the beach or at the zoo or anything were I'm taking a variety of photos and their quality isn't as important as the versatility, but I'd like an upgrade in the quality of photographs on the wide range of that lens, and this does that very well from what I've read.
    As I mentioned somewhere else I'll be working on the 70-200/2.8 after this to facilitate better shots in places like theaters and concerts, which is where i seem to be take ~25-30% of my photos.

    Once I'm able to grab those three, I would love to upgrade to a FF so it is in my future, I just can't say it'll be anytime soon (there's always the lottery, right?).

    Yeah, I've looked into the 10-22mm and if you had asked me a little over a month ago what my next lens will be I probably would have said the 10-22mm.

    Since then I've shifted my thought process a bit more longterm. I think using the 50mm/1.4 while not an L the quality has been so much better than my Tamron 18-270mm and having borrow a 70-200/2.8 I realized just how limiting that lens (the Tamron) is in some aspects, so I've really raised the bar on the quality of picture I'd like to see produced -- as far as to say, removing as much limitation by the lens and perhaps highlighting my limitations in return, a distinction I've found tougher to make when I saw the difference in quality of photos I take with the 50mm/1.4.


    Thanks guys, I appreciate the input and have been looking into it for about 4-5weeks now reading everything I can find and haven't come across much to steer me away from this lens, it seems to be just the upgrade across the wide range of my 18-270mm that I am looking for.
     
  8. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,817
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    To be fair, I'd say that just about any lens would be an upgrade from your 18-270mm lens. ;)

    The one bad thing I've heard about the 16-35mm, is that it's flare characteristics aren't 'nice'. I've know a very good wedding photographer who does a lot of shooting into the sun. He's tried several of the wide angle lenses and he shoots with several different camera bodies (full frame 1Ds & D700, 1.3 crop 1D, and 1.6 crop 40D etc.).
    He likes the flare from the 10-22 so much, that he 'hacked' it so that he could mount it onto his 1D or 1Ds bodies. It does vignette at the wider end, but he still uses it.
     
  9. mrmacedonian

    mrmacedonian TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hahaha +1 :p Gotta say though I love that raaange!
     
  10. gryphonslair99

    gryphonslair99 Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    11,437
    Likes Received:
    2,095
    Location:
    Wichita, Kansas, USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I own the 16-35 f2.8L II and absolutely love it on crop and FF bodies alike. For a zoom it is very sharp, as should be expected of this lens. The range for some can be a bit prohibitive. I don't mind the range since I own the Canon trifecta of L zooms, being the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8L's.

    Personally, If you are serious enough to plan on getting at least the 24-70 to go with it at some point then I can't imagine you will go wrong. If the 24-70 is not in the plans or at least the 24-105 f4 you might feel a little hindered.
     
  11. mrmacedonian

    mrmacedonian TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Yeah I'm planning on purchasing the 16-35/2.8 first and the 70-200/2.8 in the near future, leaving the 24-70 for sometime later on. We'll see though, I may have received some financial news this evening that will make it possible to get them much sooner than initially planned ^_^
     
  12. pbelarge

    pbelarge TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I have and use the Canon 10-22, 16-35L, and the 24-70L.

    I shoot with the 7D.

    I really like the 10-22 for wide shots. I stay within 11-18 range with this lens. Since I am usually shooting landscapes with this on my crop, I like it more than the 16-35, it is more "creative" in the image. The 16-35 produces a better photo technically, but not creatively, mostly because of the lower range.

    between the 16-35 and the 24-70, I like the 24-70 for range (with this lens, I am shooting architectural photos), but the IQ of the 16-35 is more consistant. Needless to say, the only reason for me to remove one of these lenses from my arsenal would be to possibly get the 24-105L. I would have to shoot with this lens for at least a week to see the results though before I part with my 24-70.

    I do plan on purchasing a longer glass, in the 200m range, but that may be a while, as I am in the market for the 5d Mii, which I hope to have verrrrryyyy soooon. ;):mrgreen:
    I am also contemplating some primes that may be my choice instead of the 24-105.....all I need is the strength to keep spending.:confused:
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
canon 16-35 crop sensor
,
canon 16-35 on crop body
,
canon 16-35 review dpreview
,
canon 16-35mm crop sensor
,
canon 16-35mm on cropped sensor
,

canon 16-36 ii on cropped sensor

,
canon 50d with 16-35mm
,
canon 7d and canon ef 16-35mm f/2.8l ii usm ultra wide angle zoom lens
,
canon ef-s 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 usm vs canon ef 16-35mm f/2.8l ii usm
,
dpreview canon 16-35