16-35F4 L IS, Any good?

[candc]

Has anyone tried this 16-35 f4 IS lens on an apsc camera? If so, how good is it on apsc? I've looked at image tested done by "the digital picture .com" where they did the lens image quality test using the 7d Mark ii and the images looked pretty damn good at all focal lengths tested. I know many will say consider the 17-55 for apsc, but I plan on moving to full frame in the summer and I want a lens in the range of 16-35 that I can use on both full frame and apsc. And I want to avoid the whole buy and sell thing as much as possible, as I have been very unsuccessful at every selling a lens. Please help as I am seriously considering buying this lens when my Canon rebate come in.

It is good on a crop body but there are better options for the format in that range like the sigma 18-35. It is sharper wide open at f/1.8 than the canon is at f/4. The sigma will work on ff but only on the long end so if you need the full range with both formats then get the canon. If you want the best iq on your crop body then get the sigma.

 

[privatebydesign]

Has anyone tried this 16-35 f4 IS lens on an apsc camera? If so, how good is it on apsc? I've looked at image tested done by "the digital picture .com" where they did the lens image quality test using the 7d Mark ii and the images looked pretty damn good at all focal lengths tested. I know many will say consider the 17-55 for apsc, but I plan on moving to full frame in the summer and I want a lens in the range of 16-35 that I can use on both full frame and apsc. And I want to avoid the whole buy and sell thing as much as possible, as I have been very unsuccessful at every selling a lens. Please help as I am seriously considering buying this lens when my Canon rebate come in.

It is good on a crop body but there are better options for the format in that range like the sigma 18-35. It is sharper wide open at f/1.8 than the canon is at f/4. The sigma will work on ff but only on the long end so if you need the full range with both formats then get the canon. If you want the best iq on your crop body then get the sigma.

No it isn't http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=854&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 unless you are only looking at the corners, the Canon is sharper in the center and it is a wash in the middle, and they are very close at f4 too which is a surprise as the Sigma should get noticeably better, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=854&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Of course the main difference is the Canon works very well on FF at every focal length, where it's true potential is realised http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[candc]

i wouldn't say that if i did not compare them myself. i did that on a 70d and found the sigma to be significantly better. not just pixel peeping but it was noticeable at full size. in fact the sigma on a 70d is comparable to the the canon on a 5diii, and the sigma is f/1.8 which is really important on a crop body.

 

[verysimplejason]

i wouldn't say that if i did not compare them myself. i did that on a 70d and found the sigma to be significantly better. not just pixel peeping but it was noticeable at full size. in fact the sigma on a 70d is comparable to the the canon on a 5diii, and the sigma is f/1.8 which is really important on a crop body.

You may want to refer instead to Roger Cicala's tests. They are more credible since he's using more samples than anyone can afford.

 

[candc]

i wouldn't say that if i did not compare them myself. i did that on a 70d and found the sigma to be significantly better. not just pixel peeping but it was noticeable at full size. in fact the sigma on a 70d is comparable to the the canon on a 5diii, and the sigma is f/1.8 which is really important on a crop body.

You may want to refer instead to Roger Cicala's tests. They are more credible since he's using more samples than anyone can afford.

i don't need to, as i said i did the comparison myself. but just for the sake of argument: does roger say that the canon is sharper on a crop body than the sigma?

 

[ReggieABrown]

For anyone interested, I did a "review" of this lens on an apsc camera...the 7d mark ii.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ_7MPETbGw

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm already planning on selling mine if a new 16-35mm 2.8 from Canon is released.

As much as I love this for a "fun" lens, I guess I had to purchase an f/4 to really KNOW, deep down in my bones, how much I NEED f/2.8.

Great for an f/4 though! And the IS just adds to the sharpness.

Still, I see this focal length primarily, for me, as an event (including weddings, christenings, anything in tents during the day) lens, and the loss of an f/stop limits its usefulness.