# Considering: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM



## mrmacedonian (Sep 1, 2010)

Hey all, I've been saving pennies.. a lot of pennies.. since I picked up the 50D and I've been considering getting my first piece of L glass. I've purchased two lenses (one I used to use on my Rebel XTi) and since then have rented a few and after using even the 50mm f/1.4 and especially after the 70-200mm f/2.8L that I wouldn't spend any more money on in-between lenses and that I would either have the L-series for that range or make due without it until I can. This brings me to the 16-35mm f/2.8L. I really enjoy wide angle lenses and believe this is the right lens for me.

I've read reviews on B&H, Amazon, DPReview.com (they only have data), but I would like some first hand experience from individuals on this forum if anyone has come across this lens. I don't see it mentioned often nor do I see it much in the sig-gear-lists so I thought I'd see if I'm missing something that should make me reconsider this choice. So if you're used this lens drop a line both good and bad and any other directions I should go instead so I don't waste my pennies.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Peanuts (Sep 1, 2010)

I would care to say it is one of the best zoom lenses out there. I personally shoot all primes but have shot it in the past and have had the opportunity to compare it to the 17-40 and the quality difference is astoundingly better. Probably doesn't help much but I do believe it would be a worthwhile purchase to help round out your gear


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 1, 2010)

No actually quite helpful! I prefer primes even though I don't have much gear I have rented and borrowed more primes than zooms and my 50mm hasn't left my body, so it's helpful to get an opinion from someone coming from that perspective in addition to someone with more photography experience. Also I was particularly interested in the comparison of this to the 17-40mm, so yeah you've covered a lot of my concerns! 

Thanks for the input!


----------



## FidelCastrovich (Sep 1, 2010)

Is there a particular reason you're interested in the 16-35? It's a great lens, no doubt, but it certainly loses some of its luster on a crop sensor.
Why not consider the spectacular, and very useful, 17-55 f2.8? Or, if you're looking for the equivalent of the 16-35 on a crop sensor: the 10-22 which is also very, very nice.

Is there an upgrade to FF in your near future?

P.S. The 16-35 MK II is a great lens with great optics, great range and great construction. If you've done your homework and are really interested in it then look no further - you can't go wrong.


----------



## bigtwinky (Sep 1, 2010)

Why the 16-35 is a really great lens.  I've rented noe a few times and have borrowed one from a friend and the lens is top quality.

16-35 is not ultra wide, but again, when I shoot with my 10-22, I'm often in the 14-18 range. 

Its on my list of purchases, but I'm going with the 24-70 as my next lens.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 1, 2010)

I agree with the last couple replies...in that I think you should be very certain that this is the lens you want.  

As mentioned, it's not really ultra wide on your crop sensor, it's just a normal range lens...and stopping at 35mm, it might be fairly limited in that role.  You might well consider the 17-55mm F2.8 IS, which is said by all, to be give suburb image quality (on par with L)...it just doesn't get the L moniker because it's an EF-S lens.  

I also agree that the EF-S 10-22mm is a fantastic lens.  Also said by some to be up to par with some L lenses...and this one will truly give you that ultra wide angle of view.

Still, the 16-35mm make have the edge in image quality...but you really pay a lot for that.  

Of course, if you are planning a move to full frame, then certainly stick with full frame lenses like the 16-35mm.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 1, 2010)

FidelCastrovich said:


> Is there a particular reason you're interested in the 16-35? It's a great lens, no doubt, but it certainly loses some of its luster on a crop sensor.
> 
> Is there an upgrade to FF in your near future?



Yeah I understand the drawbacks to using it on a crop sensor. My plan is to take the next 3-5 years (yeah, I'm a long term planning kind of person..) acquire this 16-35/2.8, the 24-70/2.8, as well as the 70-200/2.8. The reason I've opt'd for this lens first is because I've found with my 18-270/3.5-6.3 that i'm generally shooting at 18 or >150, lol. The Tamron lens is great for a day on the beach or at the zoo or anything were I'm taking a variety of photos and their quality isn't as important as the versatility, but I'd like an upgrade in the quality of photographs on the wide range of that lens, and this does that very well from what I've read. 
As I mentioned somewhere else I'll be working on the 70-200/2.8 after this to facilitate better shots in places like theaters and concerts, which is where i seem to be take ~25-30% of my photos. 

Once I'm able to grab those three, I would love to upgrade to a FF so it is in my future, I just can't say it'll be anytime soon (there's always the lottery, right?).



FidelCastrovich said:


> if you're looking for the equivalent of the 16-35 on a crop sensor: the 10-22 which is also very, very nice.





Big Mike said:


> I also agree that the EF-S 10-22mm is a fantastic lens.  Also said by some to be up to par with some L lenses...and this one will truly give you that ultra wide angle of view.



Yeah, I've looked into the 10-22mm and if you had asked me a little over a month ago what my next lens will be I probably would have said the 10-22mm. 

Since then I've shifted my thought process a bit more longterm. I think using the 50mm/1.4 while not an L the quality has been so much better than my Tamron 18-270mm and having borrow a 70-200/2.8 I realized just how limiting that lens (the Tamron) is in some aspects, so I've really raised the bar on the quality of picture I'd like to see produced -- as far as to say, removing as much limitation by the lens and perhaps highlighting my limitations in return, a distinction I've found tougher to make when I saw the difference in quality of photos I take with the 50mm/1.4.




FidelCastrovich said:


> The 16-35 MK II is a great lens with great optics, great range and great construction. If you've done your homework and are really interested in it then look no further - you can't go wrong.





bigtwinky said:


> Why the 16-35 is a really great lens.  I've rented one a few times and have borrowed one from a friend and the lens is top quality.
> It's on my list of purchases, but I'm going with the 24-70 as my next lens.





Big Mike said:


> Of course, if you are planning a move to full frame, then certainly stick with full frame lenses like the 16-35mm.



Thanks guys, I appreciate the input and have been looking into it for about 4-5weeks now reading everything I can find and haven't come across much to steer me away from this lens, it seems to be just the upgrade across the wide range of my 18-270mm that I am looking for.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 1, 2010)

To be fair, I'd say that just about any lens would be an upgrade from your 18-270mm lens.  

The one bad thing I've heard about the 16-35mm, is that it's flare characteristics aren't 'nice'.  I've know a very good wedding photographer who does a lot of shooting into the sun.  He's tried several of the wide angle lenses and he shoots with several different camera bodies (full frame 1Ds & D700, 1.3 crop 1D, and 1.6 crop 40D etc.).
He likes the flare from the 10-22 so much, that he 'hacked' it so that he could mount it onto his 1D or 1Ds bodies.  It does vignette at the wider end, but he still uses it.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 1, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> To be fair, I'd say that just about any lens would be an upgrade from your 18-270mm lens.



Hahaha +1  Gotta say though I love that raaange!


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2010)

I own the 16-35 f2.8L II and absolutely love it on crop and FF bodies alike.  For a zoom it is very sharp, as should be expected of this lens.  The range for some can be a bit prohibitive.  I don't mind the range since I own the Canon trifecta of L zooms, being the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8L's.  

Personally, If you are serious enough to plan on getting at least the 24-70 to go with it at some point then I can't imagine you will go wrong.  If the 24-70 is not in the plans or at least the 24-105 f4 you might feel a little hindered.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 1, 2010)

Yeah I'm planning on purchasing the 16-35/2.8 first and the 70-200/2.8 in the near future, leaving the 24-70 for sometime later on. We'll see though, I may have received some financial news this evening that will make it possible to get them much sooner than initially planned ^_^


----------



## pbelarge (Sep 2, 2010)

I have and use the Canon 10-22, 16-35L, and the 24-70L.

I shoot with the 7D.

I really like the 10-22 for wide shots. I stay within 11-18 range with this lens. Since I am usually shooting landscapes with this on my crop, I like it more than the 16-35, it is more "creative" in the image. The 16-35 produces a better photo technically, but not creatively, mostly because of the lower range.

between the 16-35 and the 24-70, I like the 24-70 for range _(with this lens, I am shooting architectural photos_), but the IQ of the 16-35 is more consistant. Needless to say, the only reason for me to remove one of these lenses from my arsenal would be to possibly get the 24-105L. I would have to shoot with this lens for at least a week to see the results though before I part with my 24-70.

I do plan on purchasing a longer glass, in the 200m range, but that may be a while, as I am in the market for the 5d Mii, which I hope to have verrrrryyyy soooon. :mrgreen:
I am also contemplating some primes that may be my choice instead of the 24-105.....all I need is the strength to keep spending.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 2, 2010)

Yeah I was definitely considering the 10-22mm and very well may sometime in the future once I take care of the "trifecta" 

You're upgrading to the 5Dii already?!? Didn't the 7D pretty much just come out!  Good luck to you man, the 5D series is the end-goal for me, but my eyes have definitely been opened and i'm chasing that glass trifecta first! though.. hearing you all praise it i might have to add the 10-22mm into my.. quad-fecta.

Thanks again for all the input


----------



## table1349 (Sep 2, 2010)

You might want to consider the Tokina 11-16 f2.8.  As much as I liked the 10-22 I sold mine and picked up the 11-16.  Very pleased with the results and the faster glass allows me to use it for indoor sports and other low light situations.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 4, 2010)

Hmm interesting suggestion I will definitely look into that once I get those three I'm kind of lusting after atm. as i said above i got some interesting financial information as a Realtor contacted me and hired me to shoot 5 houses in the coming weeks! I shot my parents' condo when they listed it as well as my aunt's house for practice (its gorgeous and this way she gets to show it off ) and this Realtor saw them and decided they're better than her + her P&S  (i take compliments where i can get them >_<).

anyway, she signed off on letting me use the photos in a sort of portfolio for other Realtors so i may post 'em up for thoughts later on.. might get my 'quad-fecta' much sooner than anticipated! kinda cool the camera/glass is actually earned its keep as an investment 

if any one glances at this and has experience or useful tips for interior real-estate photography tip-away; no advice to basic!  i'm off now to search the forum!


----------

