Just got the canon 16-35 ii and having a hard time seeing the value in this uwa

[Chuck Alaimo]

and 2 more...again, totally different scene...

in the first one I was definitely embracing the distortion, the girl I was shooting was very thin and not overly tall, but taller than average.  This is where distortion can be your friend...but even with that in mind...it's not for everyone.

[cayenne]

UWA's are fun!  They aren't 'easy' to use because of the extreme perspective, but, they are quite useful for many types of shots!  You do have to consider the elements in the shot, where with something like a 50mm it's 'easier.'

Sometimes it's not just for tight spaces either...

Here's a few with people.  First is from a same sex wedding, the other 2 are from a very small wedding with the same group of people with 16-35, then a 50 1.4.  Last is from a larger wedding.

keep it or sell it?  It really depends on what your doing with it.  UWA's have a special look to them, but, you do have to know what your doing with them to get the most out of them, and you should have some other lenses for a more natural look.  If your just looking to get good shots of the fam on vacations, sell the 16-35 and snag a 24-105

Whoohoo!!

I had to double take on the first one with two chicks kissing....

 

[KKCFamilyman]

ok here is another one of my favorite shots to take. I think now that I like more reach than a uwa gives and my style is not landscape so you are all right in that I should have bought based on need rather than completing a trio of excellent lenses because other people have them.http://www.flickr.com/photos/69086871@N03/8661001977/#

This was with my sigma 35mm. I am just into isolation and that 3d affect. I am seeing already too much is left in the frame for my type of photography. I probably should have grabbed the 50 or 85mm prime. I know I would not be on here asking its use. I just figured I would try something new and I do eventually want to grab some of my downtown Chicago skyline and this lens would fit that bill. Just on the fence.

[Dylan777]

I mainly use 16-35 II for landscape. I found 24-70 II is wide enough on FF and is so much sharper at f2.8 for family vacation.

Since I have 2 kids(2&4yrs), Sony RX1 will be my 1st choice as a travel camera.

[Dylan777]

Personally, I think you need to settle down and cool off on all the new gear.  Just use your camera and a few lenses and get good at photography before you worry so much about gear all the time.  Just some friendly advice that I think will help you relax.

+1

[KKCFamilyman]

Personally, I think you need to settle down and cool off on all the new gear.  Just use your camera and a few lenses and get good at photography before you worry so much about gear all the time.  Just some friendly advice that I think will help you relax.

+1

Thanks for the honesty

[Krob78]

Try it, look how much you use it.
If you dont like it, sell it.

My copy was a lemon. Changed it for the Tokina 16-28; this I used a lot on my trip in Venice.
And yes: humans in the corners, espacially on the wide end can look a bit distorted.

yes, but you can fix them in a flash in DXO...

[Rienzphotoz]

I mainly use 16-35 II for landscape.

Same here

[Tabor Warren Photography]

I LOVE using UWA's!

The images here are from the 17-40. I chose these in particular since they are all shot as wide as possible. I also use my UWA ~2x a week working indoors for a company here in Tulsa. I would, however, really consider your style. My wife rarely ever shoots with my 17-40 on her 60D, she prefers the 35L, that is her style and that is what she uses to get results. The 17-40 was the first L lens we bought and I have grown to love it despite it's flaws. Next year I plan on upgrading to the 16-35, but if you are a fan of the UWA look, I would consider the 16-35, 17-40, or Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have used all three and have few complaints with any of them.

Again, if wide is your style, have some fun, but if not, save your money to later optimize your shooting style.

-Tabor

[eml58]

I have it, used to use it quite a bit, mainly Landscape, but found, as have others, that it has issues, mainly as has been pointed out, corner distortion. I finally bought the New TSE 17 & TSE 24 and have been extremely happy with the results from these two lenses.

I've even used it for a while in my Underwater Imaging, Housed in a Seacam Housing attached to the 5DMK2 & now the 5DMK 3, horrible is about the only word I can think of in this situation.

I'de say for me, the 16-35f/2.8 L II has been my most disappointing Canon Lens.

[robbymack]

ok here is another one of my favorite shots to take. I think now that I like more reach than a uwa gives and my style is not landscape so you are all right in that I should have bought based on need rather than completing a trio of excellent lenses because other people have them.http://www.flickr.com/photos/69086871@N03/8661001977/#

This was with my sigma 35mm. I am just into isolation and that 3d affect. I am seeing already too much is left in the frame for my type of photography. I probably should have grabbed the 50 or 85mm prime. I know I would not be on here asking its use. I just figured I would try something new and I do eventually want to grab some of my downtown Chicago skyline and this lens would fit that bill. Just on the fence.

Obviously you're doing well enough professionally (in whatever field that may be) to afford these nice things and go on nice vacations with the family. to get to that point in your career likely took a good deal of time and effort. Apply the same now to your photography.  A lens wont improve your photography as much as shooting thousands of images will. Get out there and shoot and don't worry so much about keeping up with the gear head nuts who think nothing can be done without a $2000 lens. If I was in your shoes I'd pick one lens and only shoot with that for the better part of a year, maybe even try a 365 or 52 project. That will teach you more about photography than any course/book/shiny new object of your desire ever will.

[eml58]

[/quote]

Whoohoo!!

I had to double take on the first one with two chicks kissing....

 
[/quote]

Hilarious, I'm hopeless, didn't notice that until I read your Post, no wonder I'm a mediocre Photographer, cant see the wood for the Trees, or what ever.

[romanr74]

use it a lot when travelling cities and love it...

[CarlTN]

The Tokina 16-28 is a far better buy than the Canon 16-35.  I just used one for the first time, today.  It's sharper, and costs just over half.  The only thing it can't do is use filters...but how many of the above shots were done with filters?  In these days of HDR, how necessary is it to use sky grad filters for landscape?  If you are rigidly traditional, that's one thing.  I'm not.  I'm also not as big of a fan of polarizer filters...although if you are shooting large expanses of water in mid day light (for some reason)...then they can come in handy.

I personally would like a 24mm T/S lens to go along with the wide zoom, but I won't be buying a T/S anytime soon.  I guess a solution would be to rent when necessary.

[Marsu42]

The Tokina 16-28 is a far better buy than the Canon 16-35.  I just used one for the first time, today.  It's sharper, and costs just over half.

The Achilles' heel of the Tokina is flare control (or the lack of) - try shooting into the sun or point light sources at dusk/night and you'll get very "artistic" results - and with an uwa lens you're bound to have lights in the picture often.

The Canon's are much better, the 17-40 is said to be even best (probably due to the smaller lens diameter), I have never managed to get any flare at all. So for strictly indoor shots w/o effect or protection filter, the Tokina is excellent value, but imho that's about it.