Canon 16-35mm L II

ColeGauthier · Nov 4, 2012

How well does this lens do on a cropped body and how is the image quality, what does it compare to? Just looking to upgrade from my Sigma 17-50mm. Will be using a Canon 7D. Any input on this lens would be great!

Cheers,

bratkinson · Nov 5, 2012

I use my 16-35 f2.8L II quite a bit on my 60D. Most of the time, my 24-105 f4L fills the bill, but when I want something wider and/or faster, on goes the 16-35. One of the advantages, I find, of using the 16-35 on a crop body (I only have the 60D at the moment) is that the typical 'wide angle distortion' isn't readily apparent on the pictures. This is because the "wide angle-ness" distortion is most visible around the edges. With the crop, the edges are outside the boundaries of the sensor. I may jjust keep my 60D when I get the 5D3 with my tax refund next year, as the 16-35 results come out so good!

I did a 'city shoot' in Chicago this past September and went with only 2 lenses...the 24-105 and 16-35. I was on foot in the loop, so I did half the day with the 24-105, then went to the 16-35 on the return to the Union Station (I generally travel by train). As for quality, it's as sharp as the rest of my Ls, except the 135 which is "drop dead" sharp.

Superdaantje · Nov 5, 2012

When using a 7D would not choose the 16-35 II. Personally I find the Canon 17-55 a better choice on a crop body. The IQ is great and also has IS and is cheaper

dorian7 · Nov 5, 2012

You should also consider the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 -- I have read it is on par with the L lens and has the least amount of distortion on a FF. I have had nothing but amazing results with the Tokina 11-16.

ColeGauthier · Nov 5, 2012

I read that the Tokina does not support filters... On a side note I want to upgrade to a FF in the future so the Canon 17-55 would not be a good choice.