How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??

[Eli]

And how are you finding it?

Excellent. Wickedly sharp, great colors and contrast, blazing fast AF, solid build.

Did you sell your 24-105?

 

[Eli]

Sold my 24-105 and 24 f1.4 ii to get the 24-70 ii, can't wait for it to arrive tomorrow!

 

[pedro]

I just bought it past saturday. second hand in excellent quality (CHF 998 used instead of CHF 1998 new). I do quite some landscape/nightscape. So after upgrading to FF it was the logical equivalent to my crop 10-22. Waiting for clear night skies at the moment...Concerning the 16-35 I am in the same boat as kubelik, good point though:

my 16-35 stays on my 5DII almost all the time. I love having the 16mm to 28mm range all covered by one lens. the main thing is, I rarely am shooting people, so the distortion is not an issue. if I enjoying/was paid to photograph people, I probably wouldn't use it so much. most folks I know find it bizarre that my walk-around is an UW, but it works for the way I see things - I can't stand the "50mm is the human field of view" thing, my field of view definitely goes way wider than that.

Here's two test shots, at insane ISOs as well:


Z96A3556bBWKLEIN by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

ISO 102400


Z96A3565bBWKLEINALT by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

ISO 51200

 

[RGF]

i avoid the 16-35 since it is only a fair lens

How dare you insult one of my favorite lenses ;D ... BTW, before you do Jackie Chan up my comment - I'm just kidding.

Glad you know good from bad. Wish that Canon and Nikon would exchange lens - we would gain a great 14-24 and Nikon users could have excellent 17 and 24 TS-E. Win - win for everyone

 

[neuroanatomist]

And how are you finding it?

Excellent. Wickedly sharp, great colors and contrast, blazing fast AF, solid build.

Did you sell your 24-105?

No, I didn't. But if I don't use it, I will...

 

[pwp]

Last year I upgraded from my ten year old 17-40 f/4 to a 16-35 f/2.8II. What a revelation. I'm using it a lot more than my 17-40, not specifically because it's a stop brighter but because it's sharper from f/4 and more importantly, the shots just "look better". There's a quality about shots from this lens that have nothing to do with sharpness, distortion characteristics or any measurable, quantifiable things. Like the new 24-70 f/2.8II there is that indefinable "something" that makes both these lenses winners in my business.

To answer the OP's question...I use the 16-35 just about every day.

-PW

 

[Inspiron41]

16-35, 24-70 and 70-200L II are always in my camera bag whenever i go out to shoot weddings. when it comes to the 16-35, it really depends on the scene. whenever i have a great background with the couple or the bride, i usually pull it out. but honestly, it's the least used in my gear compared to my 5 other lens. again, this is from a wedding photographer perspective.

 

[marcel]

The two versions of this lens are very different. The Mk 1 is very bad, poor definition. The Mk 2 is fantastic.

 

[dafrank]

My answer

I too once had a 17-40 f/4.0 for a while, then bought the 16-35 f/2.8 version II. I use the lens quite frequently, mostly for architectural work - both interiors and exteriors - as well as many outdoor environments, and any time I need the either the extreme wide angle to cover my subject at close quarters, or to achieve a desired exagerrated "perspective" look to my picture. I usually use it only from about 16 to 28mm, because my version is not very good at 35mm and I have other, better lenses at that focal length. The center resolution is wonderful for an extreme wide angle zoom, and I find the lens excellent, except in the far corners where the uneven plane of focus, gives somewhat unpredictable results.

I would rather have the new 17mm TSE lens if I could (and the new 24 to replace my older version) for my architecture, but my budget won't quite stretch that far for now; the 16-35 will do fine for now, plus, as a zoom, it is very convenient to use. The only thing I might add is that for architectural work, you should have a good understanding of post processing tools in Photoshop to help with the inevitable tilted perspoective issues that pop up with a non-shifting lens.

Regards,
David

 

[kubelik]

Re: My answer

I usually use it only from about 16 to 28mm, because my version is not very good at 35mm

that's exactly consistent with my experience of the lens. if I need to go mostly 24mm and above, it's really not worth using the 16-35, I go to the 24-70 instead. but for the wider-than-24 range it's fairly unmatchable in terms of flexibility if you're using a Canon camera

 

[jcollett]

I shoot some ultra wide, but find it difficult to justify a large amount of money to something like the 16-35. I think what spoiled me was getting a great deal on a used Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4. It has a lens profile for lightroom and I got it for $200. The only thing missed is manual focus override. Just cannot justify spending hundreds to thousands more when this lens works quite well.

 

[jcollett]

Not too many towns with a population in the 45,000 range are lucky enough to have a pro camera store, I hope to do my part at keeping them here. They do have to custom order big ticket items, Canon is usually pretty good about helping them out. He was going to call the Canon Rep today and see if she could give him some priority, they can take a long time to arrive if they are out of stock.

Not too many towns are as beautiful as Coeur d'Alene! The area deserves a pro shop.

 

[AudioGlenn]

ugh...i want one! i need it to complete my f/2.8 zoom trinity. I tried out some test shots at a local camera store this week. quality and sharpness at 2.8 aren't as "bad" as some have exaggerated here on the forums. I was able to get what I wanted after some minor work in LR4.

 

[oldageadventurer]

Bought the lens(version 1) a few years ago for wide angle shots of African wildlife in their environment. We shoot in African game parks & ,must mostly stay in the car. I found the animals in foreground were too small & had distortion animals & horizon when lens wide open. Now use my 35-70 lens for the same shots. Find magnification of animals in foreground is what I need.

 

[kirispupis]

I use my 16-35/2.8 II now mainly for hiking. For most other purposes I use my TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II, but I favor my 16-35 for hiking because I rarely take a tripod, I need to keep down on the weight, and the TS-E 17 flares badly with bright lights.

I took this shot with it over the weekend.

A New Hiking Season by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

 

[ahsanford]

When I was a crop user, I used my EF-S 10-22 all the time (16-35 equivalent), but noticed I was using it on the 22 end much more than the 10 end.

+1 to not needing that width once I went FF. I previously had the 24-70 F/2.8L Mk I on my crop and periodically needed more width as the equivalent 38mm was not wide enough for many shots. But once I went to FF, I only wish I could shoot wider than 24mm in very rare circumstances.

So I've treated picking up the 17-40 or 16-35 only if a bargain opportunity falls in my lap.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

ugh...i want one! i need it to complete my f/2.8 zoom trinity. I tried out some test shots at a local camera store this week. quality and sharpness at 2.8 aren't as "bad" as some have exaggerated here on the forums. I was able to get what I wanted after some minor work in LR4.

I think the quality is excellent, it might fall short of great though. I am just not using the wide end very much. I've decided to keep it thru the summer, at least.
Then, I'll analyze my usage again. If I end up only using my new 24-70mmL, then i'll sell it and use my Tokina 17mm f/3.5 or my Canon 15mm FE when I need ultra wide.

 

[hanifshootsphotos]

I own a Canon 135mm L and the 16-35 is my favorite lens! I use it 80% of the time, here's some samples


http://500px.com/photo/23892975

http://500px.com/photo/28999777

http://500px.com/photo/21868565

 

[pedro]

my new 16-35 in the real world tonight. the photograph was turned upside down as the reflection on the water was far more exciting....Cheers, Pedro.


Z96A3584b KELIN ALT2TLDEF by Peter Hauri, on Flickr