Canon 16-35 2.8L I

Mot

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
208
Reaction score
32
Location
Cumbria, England
Website
theflashbulb.blogspot.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Don't hate me because I made this thread! I don't want to make a what should I buy thread either!

So I've made the decision to start my collection of fast glass wide to telephoto. As we know on Canon, if we're sticking to Canon glass, that means the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200. I've made the hardest decision; deciding which to get. I chose the 16-35 because it's the range I use most on my crop framed camera. I have the 50mm 1.4 and the terrible 70-300 but I find myself borrowing wider lenses like the 24mm 2.8 or even the 20mm.

I rejected the 17-40 because f/4 isn't fast enough and I'd never be satisfied. I also rejected the Sigma 12-24 after prolonged testing, it has unreliable focussing, was too soft and again wasn't anywhere near fast enough.

So that brings me to the 16-35. There are currently two available. I have decided that the price difference and 77mm thread are enough to have me satisfied with the Version I. Of course the lens will be used, it's the only way it will fit my budget. I hope to pick the lens up next Wednesday at a photography convention.

I want to hear people's thoughts, experiences or ideas. I've read the reviews but I wouldn't mind hearing from the people who have actually bought them.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, the version 1 16-35 was lousy. The version 2 although better, is still nothing to write home about. About the only Canon wide angle I can get excited about is the 24L (version 2). If there is one thing Nikon is far better in, it's wide angles. The 14-24, 16-35, and 24mm f/1.4G pretty much wipe the floor (although the new 24L is close to the G).
acpggfze6cku.pnh
 
In my option, the extra stop from F4 to F2.8, is a bit overrated when talking about an ultra wide angle lens. DOF is usually not an issue because it's going to be deep anyway, and with modern cameras, you can make up the exposure with ISO. So with that in mind, the 17-40mm F4 L, with it's nice low price, is a very attractive option.

Of course, it depends what you will be shooting. I'm interested in a wide angle, mostly for landscape and maybe church interiors etc. A photojournalist might have more need of F2.8 in an ultra wide angle.
 
OK, since you didn't ask a specific question I'll just ramble

I did not have version 1 but I do have version 2 (82mm) - I'd write home about it
The 16-35 2.8 is my landscape workhorse with my full frame 5D's and I also use it in my mechanical imagery business, although not to the extent of the 24-70 for this specific purpose. Plain and simple, I couldn't care less what others think of it - it is superb lens in every way.

If someone were starting a collection however, I would suggest the 17-40 first as it is a good all around lens on both body styles Crop and FF.
I have this lens as well and it is great.
 
Interesting thoughts, they are mostly what I'd expected. That is both reassuring but also disappointing.

Sw1tch, you say the lens is "lousy". I haven't read a single negative review about the lens. I appreciate your opinion but it appears unfounded purely based on the reviews I have read. If you could elaborate further then you could be really helpful. I'd love to get a great set of primes, unfortunately my budget won't stretch the the prime glass I'd want.

Big Mike, I am probably in the group that over rates that extra stop! I was discussing it with a photographer friend and he responded in much the same way as you! I absolutely agree that modern DSLRs are perfectly capable of making up that deficit. Unfortunately I'm mostly going be using the lens on a 20D and a 5D, they're old technology and barely capable of decent images at 800ISO. I am opening back up to the 17-40, so I'll be testing it, I just wonder whether I can spare a stop of light.

Joey_Ricard, thanks for posting! I'm interested in whether you have the 5DI or II? If you've got the Mark I I'd be interested in whether you ever miss the 2.8 over the 4 when you're using the 17-40? The 17-40 was my first choice but after testing the Sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6 I just got really frustrated with how slow it was. Of course the 17-40 is a full stop quicker but if the f/4 isn't an improvement over f/2.8 then why not just get the Sigma?

oneguywithacamera, isn't part of the draw of getting the 2.8 being that I can stop it down to f/4 and gain sharpness? Shooting wide open on the 17-40 will obviously be soft despite its L status. Looking at this comparison each lens wins a category in sharpness. Neither wins in reality, if ignoring the charts.

There are great responses; they really get me thinking about the decision in a different light. I'll reconsider the 17-40, I'll make sure I test it. The price saving is a huge draw, I just don't know what I could invest the saving in.
 
Big Mike, I am probably in the group that over rates that extra stop! I was discussing it with a photographer friend and he responded in much the same way as you! I absolutely agree that modern DSLRs are perfectly capable of making up that deficit. Unfortunately I'm mostly going be using the lens on a 20D and a 5D, they're old technology and barely capable of decent images at 800ISO. I am opening back up to the 17-40, so I'll be testing it, I just wonder whether I can spare a stop of light.
The 20D is acceptable at ISO 800, as long as you don't underexpose. The 5D should be a good deal better.

I hear you though....no matter what, you'll always want that extra stop of light. It's just hard to justify it, in this case, because of the dramatic price increase (and in the case of the 16-35mm version I) the questionable image quality (for the price).
 
That's where I go wrong. In a lot of situations I'm stuck with a slow lens, I have to shoot at ISO 800 (never higher!) and quite regularly take up to 1 stop off in exposure comp to keep the shutter speed up. That means in post I'll always be adjusting the exposure and introducing even more noise. It's disappointing and not it's something I want to continue to experience after spending £500 on a 17-40 or £750 on the 16-35.

Thinking about it. If in the situations where I shoot at 800 would it help if I shot at 1600 to overexpose it slightly but then reduce exposure in post to hide the noise? Would the result be better than shooting at 800 even without expsosure comp? It won't make me not buy a lens, I need one, but it would be great to know.
 
Joey_Ricard, thanks for posting! I'm interested in whether you have the 5DI or II? If you've got the Mark I I'd be interested in whether you ever miss the 2.8 over the 4 when you're using the 17-40? The 17-40 was my first choice but after testing the Sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6 I just got really frustrated with how slow it was. Of course the 17-40 is a full stop quicker but if the f/4 isn't an improvement over f/2.8 then why not just get the Sigma?

.

I have 2 of the the 5D2 (never had the first version), Honestly, I bought the 17-40 for my crop bodies after giving my Tamron 17-50 to my brother to use. I very seldom use the 17-40 on my 5Dii's because I use the 16-35 for wider landscapes and then on to the 24-70 2.8 and then the 70-200 2.8 (I keep this stuff in my big FF bag). So I honestly can't say that I miss it on the FF 5Ds

In my other bag I have the crop bodies with the 17-40, 24-105 and a 70-200f4 and now again I have the tamron back from my brother. I have what I call a kayak cam older xti that I use the tamron on.

I cant speak on the sigma because I have no direct knowledge.

Maybe that didn't answer your question as you posed it, but I hope it give you an idea of the uses, at least from my point of view
 
Thinking about it. If in the situations where I shoot at 800 would it help if I shot at 1600 to overexpose it slightly but then reduce exposure in post to hide the noise? Would the result be better than shooting at 800 even without expsosure comp? It won't make me not buy a lens, I need one, but it would be great to know.
Yes. For the most part, you'll get better results if you up the ISO to get proper exposure, rather than underexposing with a lower ISO and then bumping the brightness in post. Trying to increase the exposure in post, is about the worst thing you can do, in terms of noise.
 
Interesting thoughts, they are mostly what I'd expected. That is both reassuring but also disappointing.

Sw1tch, you say the lens is "lousy". I haven't read a single negative review about the lens. I appreciate your opinion but it appears unfounded purely based on the reviews I have read. If you could elaborate further then you could be really helpful. I'd love to get a great set of primes, unfortunately my budget won't stretch the the prime glass I'd want.
When I worked at Ritz (and they still stocked Canon), we had access to both 16-35's and the Nikon 14-24. So i'm speaking from personal experience off of shooting them with 5D's. The original 16-35 is garbage in the corners.
 
I totally agree with BigMike. Whichever lens you buy and use (f2.8 or the f4) you will probably realise that the f4 was the better option.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top