16-35 ii on crop

[wickidwombat]

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

 

[sagittariansrock]

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...

True... I think the only real reason is to save enough for the 5DIII

 

[bigbo]

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]

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.

 

[RC]

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]

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...

Thanks for the laugh. I needed one after spending 3 hours in traffic jam

 

[Daniel Flather]

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.

 

[Physicx]

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.

 

[gjones5252]

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]

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... :

 

[Ryan_W]

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

Personally I didn't find a lot of use at the 16mm end because of distortion. I tried the 14mm f2.8 prime (not a fisheye) and ended up with some really great shots, way better than the 16-35 on the low end.

I wound up rolling with a 14mm for close up action and a 70-200 for normal-telephoto. I virtually ignored the inbetween range.