16-35 ii on crop

[gjones5252]

Was wondering if anyone else loved using their 16-35mm on their crop cameras. I used it the first time when my wife had dropped my 50mm and no longer af. I knew I loved that focal length so this was a temp way to get it. 16-35 on FF isn't super useful for portrait sessions but on crop at 56mm I have started to really enjoy it.
Wondering if anyone else has found this useful?
Also this is kinda making me think it might be worth looking at the 24-70 which would be much high quality. But similar focal range instead of the primes I have been thinking about....

 

[Deleted member 42026]

I've used it extensively on my 7D. It's a great lens and damn useful, yes. A hard working lens you don't have to baby.

However my 2 lenses consisting of a 10-22 and a zeiss 2/35 distagon more useful. But there's nothing wrong with using the 16-35 ii on crop. That lens went back to my father to his 5D3, for good reason.

I haven't used a 24-70 on my 7D so I can't comment directly. But if that range would suit you I don't see why not. Personally I'd be testing a tamron first though.

 

[Loswr]

Was wondering if anyone else loved using their 16-35mm on their crop cameras.

Nope. I far preferred the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on APS-C...and furthermore, I prefer the 24-105mm on FF to the 17-55mm on APS-C.

 

[PackLight]

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.

 

[trygved]

I purchased one via Amazon several months back, and found it an awkward range for a crop body.
It wasn't wide enough to justify its limited reach.

If you are comfortable with the FOV of a "26-56", then it is a fine lens.
It felt stubby to me.

 

[Dylan777]

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.

and if you don't...17-55 f2.8 IS is a better lens and cheaper.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[Zv]

I haven't used that lens on a crop but I do like using my 7D as a sort of extender and getting different focal lengths and apertures. I would imagine the 16-35 II would be quite sharp, even the corners with no vignetting either!

How about showing us some sample images?

 

[insanitybeard]

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.

That's the main reason I got the 17-40L as my walkaround for the 7D- a weathersealed lens to complement the weathersealed body. It's slower than the 16-35 but does give you a tad more range at the long end.

 

[PackLight]

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.

and if you don't...17-55 f2.8 IS is a better lens and cheaper.

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

The 17-55mm would be the better choice provided you are not moving to FF.

 

[ducdude]

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.......)

 

[PackLight]

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.......)

It is a great theory and it might work for some people, but what I found is that my crop camera became nothing more than a loaner once I started using a FF camera.

 

[Random Orbits]

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.......)

A lot of people don't have the money to buy a second set of lenses, so the ef-s lenses are sold help fund the move to FF. Also EF lenses are more versatile because both FF and crop bodies can use them; it's easier to carry two bodies and one set of lenses rather than two bodies and two sets of lenses. And if the crop camera is old enough (i.e. 20D), it offers no advantage due to its low resolution and MPs.

 

[hanifshootsphotos]

Was wondering if anyone else loved using their 16-35mm on their crop cameras.

I primarily shoot with a 60D and the 16-35mm II...its my favorite lens but don't tell my 135mm that - only con I noticed that at f3.2 it becomes razor sharp.

 

[gjones5252]

And to think I almost purchased the 135mm! Thy were out of stock.
Yeah I have a apsc and FF and I love working my two cameras to combine lenses and get new focal ranges. I am glad to hear others are using this fun lens to get a fun focal range. I usually use it wide open but 3.2 sounds fun to try. Ill upload some pics when I get back home. I understand the people who are saying not a good idea but its a great UWA and I am happy to have found a second use for it!

 

[Timothy_Bruce]

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!

 

[Krob78]

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...

 

[Krob78]

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?

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

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.

 

[Loswr]

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? 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...