Canon 16-35 Question

larsonphotography

For those of you that have or had this lens or have used it, whats your take on the good, the bad and the ugly?

Thanks

ziggy53

I looked the the EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM and the model II but wound up getting the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM instead. For how I use the lens, I just didn't need the extra stop or extra weight of the 16-35mm. The 17-40mm is also a great choice for IR photography.

Eventually I will get the Nikkor 14-24mm, f2.8G ED AF-S and a Novoflex Nikon "F" to Canon "EOS" adapter but that will be for highly specialized applications.

craig_d

ziggy53 wrote: »

I looked the the EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM and the model II but wound up getting the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM instead. For how I use the lens, I just didn't need the extra stop or extra weight of the 16-35mm. The 17-40mm is also a great choice for IR photography.

I also have the 17-40 f/4L and appreciate its lighter weight and smaller size (and standard 77mm filter size, compared to the uncommon 82mm size of the 16-35mm f/2.8L II).

Eventually I will get the Nikkor 14-24mm, f2.8G ED AF-S and a Novoflex Nikon "F" to Canon "EOS" adapter but that will be for highly specialized applications.

It's pretty cool that Novoflex has come out with an adapter with a built-in aperture control ring. I'll be interested to see what you think of that when you get it. I haven't used Novoflex's adapters simply because they're expensive (even without the aperture control ring) -- on Amazon you can order perfectly functional adapters with programmable focus confirmation chips for $39, compared to over $150 for a Novoflex. But the new aperture control ring is a pretty strong selling point if you want a Nikkor G lens.

ivar

Canon 16-35 Question
I have the 17-40 and have used the 16-35 a good bit, both on my old camera (30d) and on my current (5d2). They are both nice lenses and on the 30d I didn't notice that much difference in sharpness, but on the 5d2 I find there is a huge difference in sharpness. The 17-40 is a relatively cheap lens, especially for an 'L' lens. It just can't handle the resolution of the 21MP full frame sensor that well, compared to 16-35.

If you are looking for a relatively cheap solution and are not overly concerned about sharpness, get the 17-40. It's still a good bang for your buck.

mrcoons

I'll bat for the other team.

I had a 17-40 and never used it as it did not fit my style, so I eventually sold it. I shoot a lot of performing arts and needed the extra stop to keep my ISO down. So I bought a used 16-35 mkII (from the great folks at LensProtoGo.com) and absolutely love it. It is in my kit full time now. In fact I now have an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS that I never use as I prefer the color I get over what the 17-55 produces. I'd say that that the 16-35 is sharper (to my eye) but that could just be me.

Any of the 3 are great lenses and you can't go wrong with any of them.

travischance

FactoryPhil wrote: »

For those of you that have or had this lens or have used it, whats your take on the good, the bad and the ugly?

Thanks

I have the 16-35 II and its a great lens. I originally purchased it to use in low light situations where I couldn't use a flash. Then I purchased a 50 1.4 which negated that idea. Mine is tack sharp & is fairly wide on my 7D. However, the 82mm filter thread makes it tough for you to use existing 77mm filters (sure you could purchase a step up ring).

I purchased additional filters to use only on this lens. Sure I could have purchased a step up ring. If you don't need the 2.8 aperture, the 17-40 seems to be a great choice. Not to mention it is significantly cheaper. I hope this helps.

Seefutlung

I have the 16-35 ... no complaints whatsoever. Typically I shoot available light, so the "extra" stop is great, corner distortion is low (even on FF) and it is sharp from edge to edge.