I'm looking for a wide angle for my 5diii, but I'm not overwhelmed with the 16-35. Is there anything out there that compares? I need 2.8, auto-focus, and I'd prefer the zoom capabilities. Thanks.
16-35 II vs what?
- Thread starter keithfullermusic
- Start date
Can you please elaborate? What exactly you don't like?
Can you please mention <focal length>/<aperture>/<center or corner> combinations ?
I am asking because having sold my version I 16-35 I am thinking about version II...
I have seen comparisons from a technical site but I would like an opinion subjective as it may is...
Can you please mention <focal length>/<aperture>/<center or corner> combinations ?
I am asking because having sold my version I 16-35 I am thinking about version II...
I have seen comparisons from a technical site but I would like an opinion subjective as it may is...
Upvote
0
I am afraid you ask too much: 2.8, Auto focus, Zoom.
I should add that I use some ultra wide lenses but they do not fall under your preferences.
But still I can mention them: TS-E 17mm. Well it is not a 2.8 it is not AF and it is not a zoom.
But it is the ultimate architecture lens and a very sharp one across the frame.
Zeiss 21mm 2.8: At least it is a 2.8 lens. It is not AF but I observed that I can focus manually easily. Not a zoom either.
It is very sharp across the frame.
I should add that I use some ultra wide lenses but they do not fall under your preferences.
But still I can mention them: TS-E 17mm. Well it is not a 2.8 it is not AF and it is not a zoom.
But it is the ultimate architecture lens and a very sharp one across the frame.
Zeiss 21mm 2.8: At least it is a 2.8 lens. It is not AF but I observed that I can focus manually easily. Not a zoom either.
It is very sharp across the frame.
Upvote
0
No, not really, which is why it sells pretty well even though it falls short of the other members of the f/2.8 zoom trinity. The 16-35 II is probably the best option for your line of work because of its focal length versatility. Perhaps the 14L II and 24-70 II would complement your 20 f/2.8 better if you're willing to swap lenses.
Upvote
0
if you can live without the f2.8 the EOS-M and 11-22 IS STM is F***ing amazing... really
I am loving having an UWA with quality IS, can easily shoot at 1/5 sec and get sharp images handheld and even slower taking more care.
I still wont give up my 16-35 but the eos-m and 11-22 gets used alot more now because i can just pop it in my pocket
I've also noticed the CPL on the 11-22 gives much smoother sky rendering than the 16-35 does
if you need the 2.8 for action then there is no better option currently
I am loving having an UWA with quality IS, can easily shoot at 1/5 sec and get sharp images handheld and even slower taking more care.
I still wont give up my 16-35 but the eos-m and 11-22 gets used alot more now because i can just pop it in my pocket
I've also noticed the CPL on the 11-22 gives much smoother sky rendering than the 16-35 does
if you need the 2.8 for action then there is no better option currently
Upvote
0
tron said:
I find the AF confirmation zone is pretty big for the Z21 f/2.8 using phase detect. Is that your experience as well? Big enough (between beeps) that the subject could be out of critical focus.
Upvote
0
I tried the 16-35 II and 17-40, and really, they are pretty good, way better than what one would guess by reading comments by people who say they are "cr&&&" or "unusable." They can produce very good results, especially when one applies appropriate type and amount of lens correction that are readily available.
I also believe many people who think they "need" f/2.8 in wide angle probably don't. Perhaps if you shoot a lot of real-estate interior shots in dim lighting, but then again, proper lighting and tripods should resolve that.
The 17-40 I tried was of recent build, and I don't understand why people say it's much worse than 16-35; maybe the older productions were worse? ???
If one must produce and sell wide angle photo's in large print sizes with absolutely perfect corners, then maybe this Canon "Year of the lens" thing will work out in the way of a new Canon 14-24 or 16-35 Mk III..
I also believe many people who think they "need" f/2.8 in wide angle probably don't. Perhaps if you shoot a lot of real-estate interior shots in dim lighting, but then again, proper lighting and tripods should resolve that.
The 17-40 I tried was of recent build, and I don't understand why people say it's much worse than 16-35; maybe the older productions were worse? ???
If one must produce and sell wide angle photo's in large print sizes with absolutely perfect corners, then maybe this Canon "Year of the lens" thing will work out in the way of a new Canon 14-24 or 16-35 Mk III..
Upvote
0
I myself am looking at this sector, and I can tell you, hoo boy it's hard. The woes of being on the Canon side and not on Nikon. They have an AF chip for Samyang 14mm F2.8 AND a legendary 14-24mm F2.8! This is long overdue! Anyway, as far as I've come down to it, you will want to look at Tokina 16-28mm F2.8. I'm planning to buy one myself, but I don't think sharpness is an issue for Tokina. The bulbous element will be the killer though, and I'm pretty sad about that. =<
Upvote
0
I have the 16-35, and do landscapes for the most part, largest prints 20 x 42 or so. The 16-35 is a great lens, and would have no reservation about it. If either a 16-35 III or a 14-24 come out, they will cost a lot more (16-35 on sale at B and H right now) for what can only be incremental improvement. Also, I have used the Nikon 14-24, which is a great lens but you can't put filters on it. For landscapes, that kills it for me. Good luck!
Upvote
0
Yep, it's like the old saying - good, fast, cheap - pick two. Welcome to the Canon owner's ultra-wide lens choice hell.tron said:
After too many years and posts on this, I've come to the following conclusions:
- If you need the most versatile lens (f/2.8, AF, zoom, with low distortion) the 16-35 II is the best compromise. Yes, compromise. It's a nice lens if you use its strengths, but it will disappoint if you expect too much of it.
- If you shoot landscapes and don't need f/2.8, the 17-40 is the way to go, but again, is a similar compromise
- If you need the best IQ from a zoom, order the Nikon 14-24 and a high quality (Novoflex) adapter
If you find yourself gravitating towards a single focal length:
- If you need the best IQ with AF, get the 14L II
- If you need the best IQ buy the Zeiss 15 f/2.8 or the TS-E 17, depending on your needs (filter compatibility vs. T/S)
I've left out the other lenses like the Zeiss 21 that are in this range to focus on the widest lenses, but same advice goes for them if that's your favored FL.
Personally, I settled on the 16-35II. It's not my best or favorite lens, but it's probably the most flexible lens I own. The low distortion is great and with the help of DxO / Adobe lens profiles, it's works very well for me. If I shot at 14/15/17mm all the time, I'd buy the 14L, Zeiss 15, or TS-E 17 in a heartbeat, because it would make a difference on large prints.
Upvote
0
There is the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 lens which is kind of worse than the Canon 16-35mm in it's IQ, doesn't accept screw on filters. But's it's really cheap.
Upvote
0
Yes, the Tokina is sharper than the 16-35 in most focal length/aperture settings, but the big issue (other than no filters and slower AF) is that it produces odd rainbow flare from point light sources. If you search for that, you'll be able to find examples.R1-7D said:
Upvote
0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=773&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0abcde12345 said:
Canon is better
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
Tokina maybe slightly better
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
Canon is better
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3
Tokina is better
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
both are so so...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3
canon is better
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
canon is better
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3
canon is better
Upvote
0
traingineer said:
I own the Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and I am starting to love this lens. I owned the 10-22mm on the Canon 7D but I sold both. I wanted the same flexibility with my 5D3 so, these is the best option, probably not the optimal.
There is also a Sigma 12-24mm that has also low distortion, just a little more CA at the edges but, it will not overlap with your all around zoom, if any.
I also explored the Tokina one since DoX gave very good rating but it doesn't accept filters, which is very important for landscape photography.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
