16-35 2.8L - DPChallenge Forums

07/09/2008 03:14:50 PM · #1

should i?
im thinking about it... but i have some questions first, for those of you who own it... hows it perform at 16, likewise for 35 and how sharp is it at 2.8? have you ad any issues with the lens?
thanks look forward to hearing from you, i figure i have the 70-200 2.8 so the 16-35 should give me full range, and my 50mm prime can do the middle work.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/09/2008 03:18:49 PM · #2

i don't own it, but:

there's 2 versions. Version 1 is worse than the 17-40L, version 2 is supposedly among canon's finest achievements.

should you do it? I'm thinking "no" ... it's hard to justify the price unless you're a pro - and if you were a pro, you wouldn't have asked the question.

:)

Of course, if you just have gobs of loot ... yes, buy one.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

07/09/2008 03:21:11 PM · #3

well pro? no...
is it my career? yes...
am i going to colege for it?yes...
i do alot of small portrait and senior sssions, so i mean i make quite a bit of money, it would tke me like 2 monts to pay this bad boy off

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/09/2008 03:23:32 PM · #4

Originally posted by Jib:

it would tke me like 2 monts to pay this bad boy off

then yes ... buy one

shoot, buy me one too - what's another couple of months

:)

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

07/09/2008 03:24:51 PM · #5

I have it and I pretty much leave it on one of my cameras and use it as my grab and go lens. You use a crop sensor body so it's not really a super wide on your camera but still decent coverage on the wide end. It is sharp and fast focusing and can be used for portrait shots on the long end. I use it along with the other two lenses you stated and it's a nice setup, though I am considering adding a canon 24-70 if I continue to do wedding work. The nice thing is if you step up to full frame camera in the future then you will already have a super wide. I am not disappointed with the lens and it definitely is a workhorse for me.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

07/09/2008 03:28:33 PM · #6

awesome, well its just that recently ive been setting the 70-200 down and throwing on my kit lens, not for the lens quality, but for the focal range, and im only thinking about geting a new wide cause my 18-55 kit really distorts the image, im looking for a little less distorion on the really wide stuff,

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/09/2008 03:35:02 PM · #7

The 17-55mm 2.8 has less distortion at 17mm than the 16-35mm (mark 1) at 16mm

Falc

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

07/09/2008 03:44:32 PM · #8

I have the 16-35 and its permanently welded to my 5D for those extra wide landscapes.
It out performs just about any other wide angle I looked at.

The only difficulty you will have is getting a filter set which is 'wide' enough. I use the Lee filters with a wide angle mount and still get a little vignetting. If you need a polarizer then you will lose the 16mm end of wide angle because of the vignette.

I'd say get the lens, you won't regret it.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/09/2008 04:29:38 PM · #9

I have never been able to justify the difference in price in the 16-35 and the 17-40. All the comparisons I've seen show they are more or less comparable. You gain 1 stop which might be good in night landscapes, but really isn't all that needed otherwise. WA lenses don't lend themselves to capturing action in their typical use and one can easily handhold a WA lens down to a pretty slow shutter speed.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

07/09/2008 04:40:59 PM · #10

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

WA lenses don't lend themselves to capturing action in their typical use...

I think that the extreme sports community might take issue with you there, Doc.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/09/2008 04:49:03 PM · #11

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
WA lenses don't lend themselves to capturing action in their typical use...

I think that the extreme sports community might take issue with you there, Doc.

I'm sure there are a few exceptions. You mean like snowboard jumping or BMX or something? You can still get away with slower shutter speeds because your subject is smaller and thus moves across less pixels over any given period of time.