April 20, 2014, 11:57:14 PM

Author Topic: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?  (Read 3035 times)

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2013, 09:39:11 AM »
I have the 14LII,  sig 35 f1.4....  wow, yum, whoopee!
if you want aperture-speed and lowest distortion...they are wonderful

BUT
I kept the 16-35 II because it is also great
has more distortion but less chromatics  than 14L II
sigma is a class in itself...fagetaboutit Canon

the 16-35 II  really is the best, most versatile range to get that ultrawide bit included
look for a deal on a new one and add it...

if you want the next level of quality from...14-24 or what ever ...maybe...canon brings ...someday...
I believe you would do better from the two primes....
else
get the 16-35 II....I cant let mine go....

16-35 II and a 100 macro-L in a little side-case..
and I can tackle a whole city....crushing museums, bridges, tall buildings and people on the street...
just like Godzilla

you will likely get most of your money back because others also know this

Just my ideas

TOM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2013, 09:39:11 AM »

sbadaeagle

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2013, 09:45:18 AM »
oops i forgot to write that my doubts are also because i take a lot of industrial photos to very big machines that the company where i work manufactures. Now i've the 10-22 but i've bought the 5D mkIII and i need to replace it.
I shoot :

10% landscape
20% travel reportage
30% event reportage
40% industrial photos

so the high distorsion of the 16-35 wouldn't be the best solution, but it seems the only one (counting also the big discount applied)


TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2013, 05:46:10 PM »
oops i forgot to write that my doubts are also because i take a lot of industrial photos to very big machines that the company where i work manufactures. Now i've the 10-22 but i've bought the 5D mkIII and i need to replace it.
I shoot :

10% landscape
20% travel reportage
30% event reportage
40% industrial photos

so the high distorsion of the 16-35 wouldn't be the best solution, but it seems the only one (counting also the big discount applied)

I had the 10-22 canon  and it was great
the 16-35 gives you the same picture but on a full frame....and same performance ...maybe a little better...  when I switched to FF from crop I missed the 10-22 and filled that longing
...in slightly better quality...but nearly exact view....with the 16-35 II

just sayin

TOM

twdi

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2013, 04:39:02 AM »
I'm also looking at this lens or a 17-40 for my 5DmkII.
I think for the money they must be both nice for landscapes.

I can understand the mentioned Zeis 21 is better but you cannot compare a 1700 euro lens with a 1000 or 700 euro alternative. Everyone would expect it to be better because you pay for it.

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1009
    • View Profile
Re: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2013, 05:34:22 AM »
This lens is a staple for photojournalists and wedding photographers. The fast aperture, great optics, and versatility of a zoom help them create compelling images in the tightest of environments. In a completely arbitrary collection of data, someone took a look at the EXIF information of all the cameras and all the lenses used by Reuters photographers in their “Best photos of the year 2012″ the Canon 16-35mm was, by far, the most used lens in these images. You can draw your own conclusions from this though: http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/

The Reuter story is interesting and is why I have revisited this lens to see if I put it out of use for no reason. But my conclusion has not changed. I am not happy with it on 5DIII and 1DX. But the Reuter statistics concluded that the worlds best images 2012 was primarily shot with the 16-35 combined with the 1DIV. And it might be that the 1.3x crop factor reduces some of my reservations. Unfortunately I just sold my 1DIV (was also collecting dust), so I cannot try this out myself.
5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L II, 70-300/4-5.6L, 200-400/4L 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Sigma 35/1.4, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, 600/4L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2013, 05:34:22 AM »