Help me spend some money.

cdonovancdonovan Registered Users Posts: 724 Major grins
edited September 27, 2011 in Cameras
Shooting with the 5dmrk ii

I'm looking at either the

16-35mm 2.8
35mm 1.4

I've had the chance to borrow at 35 and loved it... but have always had a secret crush on the 16-35, and now, I'm faced with making a decision...
How much distortion occurs on a full frame at 16mm?

Is it true that, if I keep the shooting range from 25-35 during shots where distortion would be "not cool" that I would be safe to leave the range from 16-25mm as a creative, play zone?

I love the 35, seriously beautiful lens, but I can't get that 16-35 outta my head! :)

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited September 24, 2011
    For "organic" photos like scenery the distortion at 16mm is often not even noticeable, especially if you keep a level horizon. For architectural photography it can be noticeable but fairly easily corrected in post processing.

    If you use ACR and Photoshop you can correct the rectilinear distortion either in ACR or in Photoshop, depending partly on the extent of the distortion. ACR can even be set to recognize the lens and the focal length and correct the distortion somewhat automatically. (You can create a camera and lens profile.)

    Canon's DPP also has automated distortion for supported camera and lens combinations, but I don't believe you can correct unsupported combinations.

    The 5D MKII has enough resolution that the corrections in post-processing are very convincing and high-quality.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2011
    I'd go with the 35 all the way, but that's just me. If I needed wider, I'd get the 24mm f/1.4L II.
  • cdonovancdonovan Registered Users Posts: 724 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2011
    Can you tell me why ThatCanonGuy? I'm looking at a similar price point, with both lenses, so am trying to make an informed decision, can you tell me why you would chose the 35, over the 16-35. Thanks!

    Thank you Ziggy! :D
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2011
    Well, mostly because of the large f/1.4 aperture. I'd love to have that as a walkaround/landscape lens (though for landscapes you'd probably want *something* wider, even if it's a 20mm 2.8 or other "cheap" lens). The 16-35 has the f/2.8, which is fast, but the 35 1.4 lets in 4x as much light. Plus, I'm not sure but I think the 35 is sharper. I know it's really sharp.

    A few months ago I was looking at a thread on another forum. It had some really nice 35L images. If I could find it, you'd be sold... but.... I'll keep looking.
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2011
    Here's the thread.
  • 20DNoob20DNoob Registered Users Posts: 318 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2011
    The 35, save a little longer afterwards and get the 17-40 and bump the ISO. That's what I'd do.
    Christian.

    5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2011
    The 17-40 is just about the same as the 16-35 when it comes to image quality. Many of the best landscape shots I've seen have come from a 17-40. I would recommend it for most purposes over the 16-35, simply because it's cheaper; the advantages of the 16-35 are mainly that it's better in low light (f/2.8), and that extra 1mm. Are f/2.8 and 1mm worth the extra 40% or so?

    But I'd still get the 35 first if you can afford it, for reasons mentioned above :)
  • digismiledigismile Registered Users Posts: 955 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2011
    The 16-35 was my first L-glass and is still a favorite. When I was making my choice (twice), I rented the lenses that I was considering. An inexpensive way to find out what is right for you.
    Brad

    www.digismile.ca
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited September 26, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Here's the thread.

    $&!_#&!^@!&

    Another lens I need to start saving for, apparently.... rolleyes1.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited September 27, 2011
    I know rolleyes1.gif It's a lens I'd love to own; it's definitely something special. That those images make great use of the 1.4 aperture, is an understatement.
Sign In or Register to comment.