Need help: is 16-35 2.8L a good choice?

JohnnyJr

I’m visiting Ireland soon and need glass to cover slightly wide and normal focal lengths (the equivalent of 28 to 50mm in 35mm terms is ideal.) I’ll mainly be shooting landscapes, streetscapes and interiors with available light. I have a 20d and my current tool for this is the 30mm Sigma 1.4. I know I’ll want something wider in Erin, but also know I won’t use this lens much after the trip. My usual walkabout lens is the 50mm 1.4, which is perfect for me in familiar environments. When traveling I tend to prefer the 30mm. My other lens is the 135 2.0L, so I’ve been spoiled by sharp, fast primes.

I’m considering the 16-35 2.8L. I’ve never owned a zoom, but it seems to make sense: I need big aperture and wide-ish focal length for interiors, wide and sharp for landscapes, and don’t want to buy a big expensive prime (the 24mm 1.4L) that I’ll rarely use. I’d rather get a big expensive zoom with 3 useful focal lengths. I’ll probably sell the 30mm before the trip.

Is it a good choice? I’ve read it’s at least as sharp as the 24mm 1.4L. I’d also like something ‘forward-compatible’ when I eventually swith to a FF sensor (another reason I’d part with the 30mm Sigma and haven’t looked too hard at the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.) Do other options come to mind?

I just want to find the right tool. I don’t mind lugging heavy equipment, I’d rather have the best tools available in a place I may never see again. I can’t afford this lens but money is not the primary concern since MasterCard will kindly be buying this for me.

Sorry for the long post. I’d love to hear some thoughts...

Mike Lane

Have you considered the MUCH cheaper 17-40 f/4 L? It's a fantastic lens that will cover your desired zoom range. You'd only be one stop slower for thousands of dollars less money.

Antonio Correia

http://www.antoniocorreia.com/keyword/republic+of+ireland
All the pictures were shot with the 16~35 f/2.8 LUSM Canon lens.
But I have a post - and I've no time now to look for it - where I ask about the lack of quality at 2.8.
Found it: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=36422
Nice flies...:):

JohnnyJr

Mike Lane wrote:

Have you considered the MUCH cheaper 17-40 f/4 L? It's a fantastic lens that will cover your desired zoom range. You'd only be one stop slower for thousands of dollars less money.

I've been considering that one, but I shoot below f4 all the time and really think I'd miss the extra light. Of course, I guess I could keep the 30mm 1.4 for low light stuff and use the 17-40 f4 for everything else... interesting thought...

Antonio Correia

More about the lack of light and about this good lens:

...

...

...

...
http://www.antoniocorreia.com/gallery/938400/6/65676676

JohnnyJr

Antonio Correia wrote:

http://www.antoniocorreia.com/keyword/republic+of+ireland
All the pictures were shot with the 16~35 f/2.8 LUSM Canon lens.
But I have a post - and I've no time now to look for it - where I ask about the lack of quality at 2.8.
Found it: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=36422
Nice flies...:):

Antonio, I really like your Ireland pix -- they are a good testimonial for this lens. I'd be interested to see the exif on the others you posted below since they all look like they were shot below f4.

Antonio Correia

Please, be kind enought to visit my page. All the pics have the EXIF.
Thank you.
You know, I'm not good at computers and would have to spend a lot of time taking them to you...
Sorry.... Hope you understand. :

JohnnyJr

JohnnyJr wrote:

Antonio, I really like your Ireland pix -- they are a good testimonial for this lens. I'd be interested to see the exif on the others you posted below since they all look like they were shot below f4.

...at least the last couple do. Found the exif on the B&W portrait - thanks.

Antonio Correia

Many many were with that lens as you will see...
I've just checked and the EXIF is there all right.

marlinspike

The 16-35 is a better lens, but you won't notice much difference other than the 1 stop of light on a 1.6x crop camera. On full frame the 16-35 is much better in the corners, has much less vignetting, and has less distortion. On the other hand the center sharpness is about the same on the both of them. If it's a lens you'll never use again you might consider just buying a used 16-35 over at FM (or here if there is one here) and then selling it when you get back. Assuming it doesn't get damaged, you'll probably end up spending nothing when all is said and done.

JohnnyJr

marlinspike wrote:

The 16-35 is a better lens, but you won't notice much difference other than the 1 stop of light on a 1.6x crop camera. On full frame the 16-35 is much better in the corners, has much less vignetting, and has less distortion. On the other hand the center sharpness is about the same on the both of them. If it's a lens you'll never use again you might consider just buying a used 16-35 over at FM (or here if there is one here) and then selling it when you get back. Assuming it doesn't get damaged, you'll probably end up spending nothing when all is said and done.

Actually, I’d probably end up using the lens more often than I think after the trip and certainly will use it on future trips. I like your thinking about the advantages on a FF body and I’ve been taking that into an account as well. What about the 16-35 vs. the 17-40 when both are shot at f4? Do you think there is a big difference?

Antonio Correia

marlinspike wrote:

The 16-35 is a better lens, but you won't notice much difference other than the 1 stop of light on a 1.6x crop camera. On full frame the 16-35 is much better in the corners, has much less vignetting, and has less distortion. On the other hand the center sharpness is about the same on the both of them. If it's a lens you'll never use again you might consider just buying a used 16-35 over at FM (or here if there is one here) and then selling it when you get back. Assuming it doesn't get damaged, you'll probably end up spending nothing when all is said and done.

This is a good point.
And if - and I assume you are right - "The 16-35 is a better lens "

JohnnyJr

Mike Lane wrote:

Have you considered the MUCH cheaper 17-40 f/4 L? It's a fantastic lens that will cover your desired zoom range. You'd only be one stop slower for thousands of dollars less money.

Well, I've been looking long and hard at various reviews on the net. The Fred Miranda ratings and test results on www.photozone.de have been particulalry helpful.

As chance would have it, I had an assignment today in the small confines of a scientific research lab. It both proved my need for a lens of this type and helped me remember why I love my 30mm Sigma so much. Dunno if I have a great copy or what, but that Sigma is so sharp and wonderful! So, I'm leaning towards saving a grand and going with the 17-40 f/4 L. I'll take that and the 30mm Sig to Ireland for low light work. Oh well, what's one more lens to lug around? Untill I actually get the 17-40 I mighty still be swayable, so please chime in with opinions. But the 17-40 is looking pretty good at the moment...

TylerW

How long is your trip? Any reason why you haven't considered renting as an option, if you won't need the lens once you get back?

marlinspike

JohnnyJr wrote:

Actually, I’d probably end up using the lens more often than I think after the trip and certainly will use it on future trips. I like your thinking about the advantages on a FF body and I’ve been taking that into an account as well. What about the 16-35 vs. the 17-40 when both are shot at f4? Do you think there is a big difference?

At f/4 there is a difference. The reason you see a lot of pros using the 17-40 is largely because the 17-40 at f4 is no worse than the 16-35 at 2.8, but at 4 the difference is definitley there (though I should note I use the 17-40 because I don't have that kind of money). www.the-digital-picture.com had a good comparison IIRC in the 16-35 2.8 review.

JohnnyJr

That is a good thought, Tyler. But I'd really like to shoot with it and feel that I know its strenghts and weaknesses prior to the trip. Last year before my honeymoon I got the 30mm Sigma, the 50mm 1.4, and the 135 2L and in retrospect I didn't use any of them to the peak of their ability. I feel like I know each lens so much better now and want to have the same level of dexterity with the wide angle zoom. Also, I'll be gone 9 days and I think the rent cost would be about half the price of the 17-40.

TylerW wrote:

How long is your trip? Any reason why you haven't considered renting as an option, if you won't need the lens once you get back?

JohnnyJr

Like you I really don't have the money either... so now I'm a 17-40 user as well! I got it tonight on my way home. I'm going to do a bit of testing over the weekend and will report back on results. But I shot a little with it tonight and already love how it handles!

marlinspike wrote:

At f/4 there is a difference. The reason you see a lot of pros using the 17-40 is largely because the 17-40 at f4 is no worse than the 16-35 at 2.8, but at 4 the difference is definitley there (though I should note I use the 17-40 because I don't have that kind of money). www.the-digital-picture.com had a good comparison IIRC in the 16-35 2.8 review.

JohnnyJr

Ok, here's the first batch of test shots from my walk around the 'hood tonight. The samples are uncropped raw conversions with just a little color temp and contrast tweaking. USM settings are 200 / .3 / 0 . Images from this lens seem to sharpen up very nicely. You can see the originals with exif here: http://sisson.smugmug.com/gallery/1615696
I'd love to hear from others if these results seem on par with their experience. I'm feeling like I got a pretty good copy of this lens.

Chase

If you are gonna be spending the bucks for a 16-35L, consider the canon 17-55 IS 2.8. It is an amazing lens and will be even more low light handholdable than the 16-35L.

JohnnyJr

Hi Chase,
That lens does look really great, but I wanted something that would be compatible with a full-frame body. Of course, my beloved Sigma 30 1.4 isn't, but it was the best solution I could find at the time and it's worked well... At this point, I've purchased the 17-40 f4 which is a lot cheaper than either one. I suppose if it dosen't work out I can always sell it and move up to either the 17-55 IS 2.8 or 16-35L, but I'm liking it so far.

Chase wrote:

If you are gonna be spending the bucks for a 16-35L, consider the canon 17-55 IS 2.8. It is an amazing lens and will be even more low light handholdable than the 16-35L.