August 30, 2014, 06:27:52 AM

Author Topic: 16-35 ii on crop  (Read 9110 times)

Timothy_Bruce

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2012, 02:55:20 PM »
I also use it time to time on my 7D it is a nice non-extending weatherseald nice too use L-Lens ( Much nicer, than the 17-55 which extends by zooming and has zoom and focus rings not even near as nice ;) )
7D with 16-35 II is really a nice to use combo!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2012, 02:55:20 PM »

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1283
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2012, 03:52:08 PM »
A lot of people use the term "move to FF" here.  Why not use "add FF".  Keeping an APS C body instantly gives you another FOV for all of your EF glass, have a backup body, not lose money on selling the kit and you get to keep and enjoy the "EF S holly trio" (10-22, 17-55 and 60mm.......)

I'm with you Dude!  Let's own both!  I've done portrait work with my 7d using the 17-55 and my 70-200 f/2.8.  I prefer the compression the 70-200 affords me on portrait work, but the 17-55 works out well, if I'm in limited space...
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400mm L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II, EF 24-105mm L, EF 17-40mm L, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM,  Canon 580EX II, Canon 430EX II, Promaster TC 1.7x

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1283
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2012, 03:57:30 PM »
I think the only time a 16-35mm II would be preferred on APS-C is with a 7D when a weather-sealed wide-to-normal zoom is reqiured.  The other reason is a PackLight suggested - if you're going to move to FF in the very near future.  Else, for the wide end an EF-S lens will deliver better IQ for lower cost.

Why is that Neuro?  Are you referring to the EF-S delivering better IQ than just the 16-35mm II in particular or better than EF lenses in general on an APS-C camera like my 7D?
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400mm L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II, EF 24-105mm L, EF 17-40mm L, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM,  Canon 580EX II, Canon 430EX II, Promaster TC 1.7x

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1248
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2012, 04:23:09 PM »
Buying a 16-35mm II for a crop body is an excelent idea. It gives you one more reason and a bit more justification to buy a FF later.

That is true. The 16-35 on a crop sensor will limit your standard zoom/walk-around range and not provide enough of a wide angle, so you'd be forced to go full frame  ::)

But...buying the EF-S mount lens gives you one more reason to NOT buy a FF.  :P

Jokes apart, the 17-55mm is one of the reasons I don't want to go FF yet, since I cannot afford f/2.8 equivalent for FF. Mind you, not because I am stuck with it, but because I really like it.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13965
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2012, 04:57:37 PM »
Jokes apart, the 17-55mm is one of the reasons I don't want to go FF yet, since I cannot afford f/2.8 equivalent for FF. Mind you, not because I am stuck with it, but because I really like it.

So...the f/2.8-sensitive sensitive AF point is that important to you?  :o  Because, that's all you're giving up.  The FF equivalent of the 17-55/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens.  The 24-105L on FF is wider, longer, faster (in terms of DoF for same framing), and delivers overall better IQ.  When bought in a FF body kit, the 24-105L is $800 - cheaper than the 17-55mm, and selling the 17-55mm used would cover the cost.  Since the FF sensor delivers at least 1.3-stops less ISO noise (and up to 2 stops, depending on the FF body), you can bump the ISO a stop to make up the shutter speed lost going from f/2.8 to f/4, and still have less noise.  So...you're giving up only the higher precision center AF point. 

I think you need to find a new reason to put off going FF...   ;)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4484
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2012, 05:31:44 PM »
i love the 16-35 II

I prefer it on APS-H sensor cameras (it gives about 21mm -48mm or something like that which is brillaint for a walk around)  I always feel 24mm is a little too tight when i want to shoot wide

I have had a play with the lens on my EOS-M and it works pretty well, since i already have the lens i'll probably use it alot on the EOS-M when i want a zoom on that camera the range is still good similar to using the 24-70 on FF just not quite as wide and not quite as long but it is super sharp even wide open

APS-H Fanboy

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1248
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2012, 12:50:34 AM »
Jokes apart, the 17-55mm is one of the reasons I don't want to go FF yet, since I cannot afford f/2.8 equivalent for FF. Mind you, not because I am stuck with it, but because I really like it.

So...the f/2.8-sensitive sensitive AF point is that important to you?  :o  Because, that's all you're giving up.  The FF equivalent of the 17-55/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens.  The 24-105L on FF is wider, longer, faster (in terms of DoF for same framing), and delivers overall better IQ.  When bought in a FF body kit, the 24-105L is $800 - cheaper than the 17-55mm, and selling the 17-55mm used would cover the cost.  Since the FF sensor delivers at least 1.3-stops less ISO noise (and up to 2 stops, depending on the FF body), you can bump the ISO a stop to make up the shutter speed lost going from f/2.8 to f/4, and still have less noise.  So...you're giving up only the higher precision center AF point. 

I think you need to find a new reason to put off going FF...   ;)

True... I think the only real reason is to save enough for the 5DIII :)
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2012, 12:50:34 AM »

bigbo

  • Guest
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2012, 02:07:28 AM »
It`s just a matter of 1.6x body corp. You can take a photo at 35mm on FF body, and cut the photo to the size of 1/1.6, it is the same.

I`ve got the 70-300L, and tested moon shooting, both on 5DMk3 and 60D, eventhough 60D has the advantage of x1.6 zoom, but I can tell you, the detail on FF 5DMk3 is no less than 60D.

So I think there`s no need to buy a crop body for this, just cut, all the same

tphillips63

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2012, 01:26:43 PM »
Maybe a bit off topic but since I do have this lens and a 7D, and recently bought a 5D MkIII, all I can say is, I don't use the 7D much any more.
My ideas of 'moving up' to full frame pretty much went away when I like the shots from the 5D MkIII so much better than pretty much anything I get from the 7D.

I have seen great 7D shots but to me the noise is a lot higher than the 5D MkIII, otherwise I did like the lens on both but I also like the 24-105 better even though it is 'only' f/4.

In other words, get a larger sensor, you will really like it if you can get one.
EOS 5D Mk III | EF 16-35/2.8L  | EF 24-105/4L IS | EF 70-200/2.8L II IS | TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II | EF 35mm f/1.4L | EF 40/f2.8 P | EF 50/1.2L | EF 180/3.5L | 600EX RT |

RC

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2012, 02:56:59 PM »
Replaced my 15-85 with a 16-35 II primarily for weather resistance and secondary for a constant aperture and improved distortion (15-85 is bad at 15mm).  I did consider the 10-22 plus 24-105 so I would have something wide for landscapes and such.  But I knew I wasn't far away from getting a FF so I held off on the 10-22.

I loved the 16-35 on a crop (and still do) even though I don't expect to use it much more on my crop now that I have a FF.   The 16-35 is an excellent choice for crop when you need a weather resistance lens in that range.

candyman

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1216
  • The best critic sits in front of the camera
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2012, 03:01:42 PM »
Jokes apart, the 17-55mm is one of the reasons I don't want to go FF yet, since I cannot afford f/2.8 equivalent for FF. Mind you, not because I am stuck with it, but because I really like it.

So...the f/2.8-sensitive sensitive AF point is that important to you?  :o  Because, that's all you're giving up.  The FF equivalent of the 17-55/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens.  The 24-105L on FF is wider, longer, faster (in terms of DoF for same framing), and delivers overall better IQ.  When bought in a FF body kit, the 24-105L is $800 - cheaper than the 17-55mm, and selling the 17-55mm used would cover the cost.  Since the FF sensor delivers at least 1.3-stops less ISO noise (and up to 2 stops, depending on the FF body), you can bump the ISO a stop to make up the shutter speed lost going from f/2.8 to f/4, and still have less noise.  So...you're giving up only the higher precision center AF point. 

I think you need to find a new reason to put off going FF...   ;)




 :D
Thanks for the laugh. I needed one after spending 3 hours in traffic jam
5DIII w/grip  |  6D  |  16-35L IS  |  24-70VC  |  24-105L  |  70-200 f/2.8L IS II  |  70-300L  |  35 f/2 IS  |  50A  |  135L

Daniel Flather

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 851
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2012, 06:23:34 PM »
I think the only time a 16-35mm II would be preferred on APS-C is with a 7D when a weather-sealed wide-to-normal zoom is reqiured.  The other reason is a PackLight suggested - if you're going to move to FF in the very near future.  Else, for the wide end an EF-S lens will deliver better IQ for lower cost.


Yes, the ef-s 10-22 is the 16-35 equal for focal length.
| 5D3 | 8-15L | 24L II | 35L | 50L | 85L II | 100 macro | 200/2L | EOS M | 22 STM |

Physicx

  • Guest
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2012, 07:18:08 AM »
the 16-35 II is no comparison with the 24-70. It is just not a very good lens relative wise. The image isnt sharp, no where close to the 24-70, even cropped. You use the 26-35II for what it is...ie it is the only thing available for a wide angle zoom Full frame at 2.8. I like it but the image quality is just not relatively good. Best thing is still go FF and take the 24-70L. But it is a bit heavy and not really a walk about lens.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2012, 07:18:08 AM »

gjones5252

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2012, 08:03:56 PM »
Here are the promised samples. I know not everyone likes it but so far i really like it. It a good combo to work with for me until i get a 50mm.

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1283
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2012, 02:46:41 PM »
I haven't had any negative feelings about images with my ef-s 17-55mm lens.  I still love the compression I get with my ef 70-200mm f/2.8 II, but when quarters are too tight, that ef-s lens hasn't failed me yet...  : :)
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 01:01:37 AM by Krob78 »
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400mm L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II, EF 24-105mm L, EF 17-40mm L, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM,  Canon 580EX II, Canon 430EX II, Promaster TC 1.7x

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 16-35 ii on crop
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2012, 02:46:41 PM »