When you need wide, the 16-35L is really good. A not-so-typical use, but very glad I had it today, this was a Tae Kwon Do event, and this was not the regular venue - this room was extremely tight, I was on the floor literally a few feet from the kids.
The 16-35 II is a great, great lens. Just got one recently and it's much better than the 17-40 I used to have, especially with sharpness at the edges. Highly recommended and as Andy showed, it's a versatile lens that's good for more than just landscape work. My 24-105 remains my primary walk-a-about but I find myself swapping quite a bit with the 16-35L II and 70-200 f4L.
Have found that lens flare, even with sun in frame, is more than acceptable with good contrast maintained (only done this with polarizer on). Have also found that vignette can be a small issue but only in SOME situations. Very infrequent. I assume this has to do with angle of light entering the lens and hitting full-frame sensor?
Couldn't have taken this shot with the 24 T/S (but I suspect that lens will be my next purchase)
16-35L II @ 16mm on 5d, f11, 1/500, -2/3ev, fill flash -2/3 with Stofen diffuser and head at 45º, Hoya Pro Digital polarizer, ISO 400.
Does the 16-35 II perform twice as well as the 17-40 (at twice the price) for a landscape guy that almost always shoots at f/8 or f/11?
Actually a bit more than twice the price since the 17-40 has the same filter size as the 24-105.
No, certainly not "twice as well"
Some of the best landscapes I've ever seen were taken with the 17-40, especially by Marc Adamus (http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/). I believe he said recently that he was looking at the 16-35II but was probably picking up the 24 T/S next.
And yes, the 82mm filter size will increase your filter costs. The new Hoya Pro Digital polarizer (its extra slim) costs about $275.
But if you don't have a superwide, you have lots of bucks, and you want a 2.8 lens, then I highly recommend this lens.
Comments
Awesome!
I keep thinking of the scorpion & the frog story...because i am.
16-35L II on Canon 5D, @ 16mm (click for exif)
I actually cropped it some for the final shot:
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Have found that lens flare, even with sun in frame, is more than acceptable with good contrast maintained (only done this with polarizer on). Have also found that vignette can be a small issue but only in SOME situations. Very infrequent. I assume this has to do with angle of light entering the lens and hitting full-frame sensor?
Couldn't have taken this shot with the 24 T/S (but I suspect that lens will be my next purchase)
16-35L II @ 16mm on 5d, f11, 1/500, -2/3ev, fill flash -2/3 with Stofen diffuser and head at 45º, Hoya Pro Digital polarizer, ISO 400.
Thanks Andy!:D:D:D
Does the 16-35 II perform twice as well as the 17-40 (at twice the price) for a landscape guy that almost always shoots at f/8 or f/11?
Actually a bit more than twice the price since the 17-40 has the same filter size as the 24-105.
www.motorpo-po.smugmug.com
No, certainly not "twice as well"
Some of the best landscapes I've ever seen were taken with the 17-40, especially by Marc Adamus (http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/). I believe he said recently that he was looking at the 16-35II but was probably picking up the 24 T/S next.
And yes, the 82mm filter size will increase your filter costs. The new Hoya Pro Digital polarizer (its extra slim) costs about $275.
But if you don't have a superwide, you have lots of bucks, and you want a 2.8 lens, then I highly recommend this lens.