May 25, 2018, 07:32:12 AM

Author Topic: Just got the canon 16-35 ii and having a hard time seeing the value in this uwa  (Read 54955 times)


  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
  • Hobbyist
After reading through this thread, I got inspired to take my 16-35mm with me over the weekend to a Tae Kwon Do tournament that my children participated in.  I'm glad I took it, even though I only used it for a few shots.

Cams: Canon 5D3, EOS M
Zooms: 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II; Primes: 22mm f/2, 40mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 600mm f/4L IS II
Support: Gitzo GT4542LS/G2258, RRS BH-55, Wimberley WH-200

canon rumors FORUM


  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1621
I got the 17-40mm....I found a good used one for like $500 I think and figure that would hold me till I went for a 16-35 later.

But honestly, I love the lens, this and my 24-105 are usually my daytime walk around lenses.

I actually wanted something even more UWA to play with, and got the rokinon 14mm...which is about the last on the edge of rectilinear.

that thing is WIIIIIDE...but has proven for something relatively inexpensive (I caught a special sale for like $199 I think?) is a LOT of fun to play with. And for $25 I found a program to correct for the problems the lens is knowns to have. But I've had a LOT of fun playing with this UWA lens, and the 17-40mm, is quite easy to walk around with and use.

My next lens..I'm debating between the 24mm tilt shift, or a 50mm L f 1.2.....I'm leaning towards the 24mm TS here lately, I like the wide angle stuff.

My $0.02,



  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3718
  • Doing my best to get all of this to work together.
Hi I hired the efs 10-22 for a special job I used the lens on my 40d which gives about the range you are querying, a friend has a camp site that is also well stocked with static caravans and he wanted interior shots of the different models to help customers choose which to rent, I did use the lens for a couple of days to get to know it a bit. For the job it was used mostly fully wide as there is no room to take a step back though some shots did require zooming in slightly to get a better frame. If this is not the sort of thing you do I guess that you may not find a need for it. I have it on my wish list as although I don't need it I did like the abilities of this lens over the normal 17-85 when I was trying it out, people, landscapes, pets seem to pop more, and the creative abilities are there if only I was creative.

Cheers, Graham.
7DII+Grip, 1DsIII, 7D+Grip, 40D+Grip, EF 24-105 f4L EF-S 17-85, EF-S 10-22, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, EF 1.4xIII, 2xIII, EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6l IS II, Σ17-70 f2.8-4 C, EF 50mm f1.8, YN600EX-RT, YN-E3-RT, Filters, Remotes, Macro tubes, Tripods, heads etc!

1DsIII, 20D, 24-105, 17-85, Nifty 50 pre owned


  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
    • Nicholas J Allo Photography
Yeah i returned it and afterusing it. I felt getting the 70-300l was something I knew i could use. I go on a lot of trips where I could use the reach and while slower than my 70-200 2.8. I think it offers the lighter travel lens that i was looking for but still retaining good IQ. It just felt odd buying the same focal length but both will serve their purpose. Thanks again for everyone's input.

canon rumors FORUM