Canon 16-35 f/2.8

[AaronA1]

I have been staring at this lense on several websites for weeks. I would like to have it. Does anybody here own this lense? I have a 50 f/1.4, a 70-200 f/4, and the kit 18-55....I would like to replace the kit lense, and get the wide angle. For the people who own this lense, do you use this lense more than the other lenses you have? I have been shooting weddings with the kit lense, but feel like the 16-35 just would be all around, way better....opinions? Help me!

 

[Big Mike]

I don't own it, but I've always heard pretty good things about this lens...particularly the current 'II' version. It believe that it's on par with the other L zoom lenses, which is pretty good.

It would certainly be a HUGE improvement over your kit lens.

Have you considered the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS? I ask because most of the wedding photographers that I know, who use Canon 'crop bodies', use the 17-55mm and they rave about it.
It's not an L lens, but probably only because they don't give EF-S lenses that designation. They all say that the image quality is just as good.

The only issue is that it is an EF-S lens, and as such, isn't compatible with a full frame body, should you decide to upgrade someday.

Some other options would be;
the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (with or without VC).
the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8
the Canon 17-40mm F4 L

 

[AaronA1]

I don't own it, but I've always heard pretty good things about this lens...particularly the current 'II' version. It believe that it's on par with the other L zoom lenses, which is pretty good.

It would certainly be a HUGE improvement over your kit lens.

Have you considered the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS? I ask because most of the wedding photographers that I know, who use Canon 'crop bodies', use the 17-55mm and they rave about it.
It's not an L lens, but probably only because they don't give EF-S lenses that designation. They all say that the image quality is just as good.

The only issue is that it is an EF-S lens, and as such, isn't compatible with a full frame body, should you decide to upgrade someday.

Some other options would be;
the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (with or without VC).
the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8
the Canon 17-40mm F4 L

Thanks for the quick response! I plan on upgrading to the 5D MK II someday, or some other full frame body, so pretty much all the lenses I buy, I would like to have the EF lenses or the EF-S. I saw the 17-40 f/4, and I do like that lense, and from the sample pictures I have seen, it looks wonderful. But I feel like, I may have to need that additional fastness from the f/4, to the f/2.8... I guess you could say I am in the predicament where I am wondering if I will definately need that additional fastness or not. If anybody can answer that question too, that would also be awesome..... such a hard decision!

Maybe it would be a good idea to get the 17-40 and if I feel like I want the additional fastness, I could sell it and get the 16-35, since they hold their value so great......opinions on that one?

 

[bigtwinky]

^^ Great advice.

I dont own the 16-35 but have shot a few times with one and its a really nice lens. Its best on a full frame though. If you are going for the ultra wide, you might want to look at a 10-22 lens. But if you are simply looking at replacing your kit lens, then then 16-35 or 17-55 are both great options. The 17-55 being closer to the focal range you are used to, the 16-35 being usable on full frame bodies.

I'm thinking 2011 is my year for full frame so all lens purchased from last year and on have been full frame ready lenses (50 1.4, 70-200 2.8...with a 24-70 this year). I'll have my 10-22 that won't work on a full frame, but its such a nice lens, I'm keeping it for my 7D

 

[AaronA1]

The 10-22 looks like a great lense too. I am also looking at that one as well! It is such a hard choice. The 17-55 sounds like a pretty awesome lense as well. Does it have great picture quality as compared to the 16-35 or 17-40? I feel like with those two lenses all I would be paying for is the red stripe around the lense..... So if I decided to get the 17-55, I would then wonder if I should get the 17-40, because it is pretty close to the 17-55 focal range.....so that I am that much more prepared for the full frame....

You guys are awesome with your responses!!!!!!!!!!!:hug::

 

[bigtwinky]

17-40 = f/4
17-55 = f/2.8
16-35 = f/2.8

While f/4 isn't a huge issue, its still one stop of light. So that picture you are shooting in a dim church at ISO 3200 and 1/60 shutter could actually be shot at 1/125.

If this was for every day shooting, then I'd go with the 17-40 f/4. But you mentionned weddings and as weddings can happen in low light venues where flash isn't allowed, the one stop makes a difference.

Picture quality is excellent with the 16-35, 17-40 and 17-55. Unless you are zooming all your images up to 200%, you will probably not notice a difference on a well exposed and well focused image between the three.

The 10-22 is not your best bet for portraits (try it out though as it can have some interesting results), although you can get some great group shots and setting shots with this lens. Plus, its an awesome landscape style lens. Its another one of those awesome lenses that should have an L designation but doesn't because its an EF-S

 

[bigtwinky]

where I am wondering if I will definately need that additional fastness or not. If anybody can answer that question too, that would also be awesome..... such a hard decision!

I look at it this way. I prefer to have the fastness available to me and not need it, than to need the fastness and not have it. Lenses are a long term investment. Get a good copy and one can last you 10 years easy. So I'm not shy to spend the money (when I can) on good, fast glass

Keep in mind that this can be either with more expensive 2.8 zooms or getting some fast primes to compensate for slower zooms. Like the 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and a fast wide prime.

Personally, for shooting weddings, I'd prefer 2.8 zooms.

 

[jcolman]

I have the 16-35 mk II. It's much improved over the mk I version. I love this lens. When I took a trip last summer to Italy, I debated over which lenses to carry (I own nine). I wanted to travel light so I took the 16-35 and a 28-75. The 16-35 got most of the love on my trip.

 

[AaronA1]

16-35 is just sounding better and better. Has anybody shot portraits with the 16-35?? How does that look? Besides shooting weddings with the 16-35, I would also like to try shooting other portraits with the 16-35, as in, stuff with backdrops... I have a telephoto I like to use for senior portraits, and the 50 is great also for senior photos. But I do enjoy shooting photos with backdrops, and I use the 18-55 most for that, which is why I am wondering if the 16-35 would be good for that? The 17-55 is probably also excellent for that.

I'm full of questions today, good god! It's a slow day at work.....gives me too much time to think about what to buy....

 

[bigtwinky]

I'll flip the question back to you...when you do portraits with the 18-55, what focal range are you mostly using? Wide or long? If the majority of your portraits shot with the 18-55 are at a focal range greater than, lets just say, 35mm, then you might not like the 16-35 for portraits.

If the majority of your portraits are, lets say between 18mm and 35mm, then you'll love the 16-35 as it gives you a bit more control in the depth of field with the 2.8 vs the variable 3.5-whatever on the 18-55.

It depends on you, your style and your vision. I dont like wide for portraits, but thats me. I know people who love wide for portraits, thats them. It all works.

 

[AaronA1]

I am always in the 18-35 range on my camera, so I guess the 16-35 will be awesome. I am looking at the 17-40 and the 17-55 now. I guess I have narrowed it down to those three, and the 17-55 is looking pretty great as well. I guess it might be a good idea to invest in that. It is looking like a pretty smart choice....It is 2.8, and from the picture differences I can see compared to the 18-55, it is crazy how much better the pictures look.

I am going to narrow it down to the 17-55, and the 16-35....because I am not going to cheap out, and regret it later when I want that extra stop. So, here comes the hard part.......16-35, or 17-55.......might as well flip a coin!

 

[AaronA1]

And it looks like the 17-55 is winning the race in my head....

Big Mike, thank you for introducing me to this lense. I didn't know the lense existed until you mentioned it.

 

[Big Mike]

I plan on upgrading to the 5D MK II someday, or some other full frame body, so pretty much all the lenses I buy, I would like to have the EF lenses or the EF-S.

EF-S lenses are NOT compatible with full frame cameras.

So if you are planing to upgrade to the 5D or similar, then you will probably want to avoid EF-S lenses like the 17-55mm or the 10-22mm etc. (also, the Tamron 17-50mm and Sigma 18-50mm).

I still think that the 17-55mm F2.8 IS may be the best tool for shooting weddings with your camera, and it should hold it's value pretty well....but if you plan to upgrade sooner, rather than later, then it's probably best to consider an EF (not -S) lens.

 

[jessetheginger]

I recently had this inner conflict....

Shooting on the T2i, and I decided that the 17-55 f/2.8 was the one to go with. One of the big deciding factors for me was IS on the 17-55 for about the same price as the 16-35 without IS.

Both use the same UD glass.

Also, the 17-55 is in very high demand, and resale value is extremely high. I plan on selling the 17-55 when I go full frame and replace it with the 24-70 2.8. A bit of eBay research told me that the $990 lens consistently sold for between 800 and 900.

I can send you some full res shots if you'd like

 

[Big Mike]

One thing to be aware of, with the 17-55mm lens, is that the IS system isn't as robust as on other lenses. I know a handful of photographers who have had to have the IS on their 17-55mm repaired/replaced. But these are full time pros, who use them A LOT.

Luckily, you shouldn't really need IS all the time on such a short lens, so the best solution seems to be turning it on, only when you really need it.