7D and EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Dan7312

I'm looking at getting the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM for a new 7D. I know that in general there can be an issue with vignetting by filters on a wide angle lens but is it as big a deal for a 1.6x crop camera like the 7D? In other words do I have to get slim filters for this lens on a 7D (I doubt I will every have a full frame camera)?

Also does anyone have anything particularly bad, or good for that matter, to say about this lens on a 1.6x crop camera?

Thanks,

kdog

If I were you, I'd get the EF-S 10-22 at half the price, and have a true super-wide. It's a stunning lens and the optics are easily the equal of the 16-35 MKII. If you aren't planning on going full-frame any time soon, it's a no-brainer. I use my regular thickness B&W 77mm CP on it, with only a very small amount of vignetting at 10mm.

(BTW, it's best not to change the color of the text in your posts. I had to highlight the text of your post to see it, because it was black text on a dark gray background. Much better to simply go with the default colors which always work.)

Example at 10mm with CP.

Cheers,
-joel

Dan7312

Thanks for pointing out the ultrawide.. but I really wanted the 35mm top end. It 10-22 is also slower, but you've spured me to take a second look.

What color is in the background?... I always paste in text rather than type in directly... when I preview before I post I see the ordinary gray background. How do I edit the background to force the default color?

kdog wrote:

(BTW, it's best not to change the color of the text in your posts. I had to highlight the text of your post to see it, because it was black text on a dark gray background. Much better to simply go with the default colors which always work.)

Cheers,
-joel

kdog

The 16-35MII is optimized to work best at the wide end. It's noticeably soft at 35mm, so there are better choices for that focal length. Again, since you aren't going to full-frame any time soon, the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 is a killer lens and unbeatable at 35mm unless you go with a prime. The 24-105mm F4 is also excellent, and would give you a huge range when paired with the 10-22. Now that I think about it, if you aren't concerned about going super-wide, the 17-55 might want to be the first lens you get. I'd never be without my 10-22 on a crop body though because I'm just a super-wide kinda guy.

Thanks for fixing your text. On my system, your text was black, on a dark-gray background. I *think* that's the default Dgrin background, but could be from some style choice I made years ago that's being remembered by the site. Point being, if you let Dgrin choose the colors, they'll always work. If you're pasting in the text, use the A/A button on the upper-right corner of the composition window which shows the formatting commands, and simply delete the FONT= directive.

Cheers,
-joel

Ric Grupe

kdog wrote:

I'm just a super-wide kinda guy.

That surprises me with all that treking you do!

kdog

Ric Grupe wrote:

That surprises me with all that treking you do!

Hahaha, I'd be even wider if I didn't. So what do you think of my lens suggestions?

Ric Grupe

kdog wrote:

Hahaha, I'd be even wider if I didn't. So what do you think of my lens suggestions?

17-55!

24-105 is a great lens just not wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera.

Spending all that doe on the 16-35 makes no sense to me when not going full frame.

Cuong

+2 on Ric's and Joel's suggestion.

Cuong

dlplumer

I agree with Joel, but look at the 17-40L as well. Optically it is as good or better than the 16-35 at half the price. You lose 2.8 for 4.0.