Canon 16-35mm L II Usm

[decltype]

As for the 24 1.4 I hardly use it during daytime (probably I just haven't gotten used to the shallow depth of field in a wide-angle pic (which is not that wide on a 7D). I use the 24 1.4L as a walk around lense that stays on my cam in the evening/at night and also when having dinners and get togethers with friends as it allows nice indoors pics without a flash. I must add that the 85 1.2L is even better for taking pics in dim light (as the additional f-stop allows it to let twice as much light in as the 24 1.4L), however, on an APS-C sensor the 85 1.2L is a 136mm lense which limits its use. On the 5DMk3 the 85 1.2L will probably become my night time walk around lense... ;-)

isn't 1.2 only half a stop faster than 1.4?

Actually, it's one third of a stop faster. Considering that the 24 can be hand-held at slower shutter speeds than the 85, it could be said to be more low-light capable in situations that do not require a high shutter speed.

 

[Loswr]

isn't 1.2 only half a stop faster than 1.4?

Actually, it's one third of a stop faster.

Actually, it's both, or if you prefer, neither. On the half-stop scale, f/1.2 is 1/2-stop wider than f/1.4, but on the 1/3 stop scale, f/1.2 is 1/3-stop wider than f/1.4. See the wikipedia page on f/stops.

Mathematically, f/1.2 really is closest to a 1/2-stop, since 21/2×0.5 = 1.1892), whereas 22/3×0.5 = 1.2599, which personally I'd round to f/1.3.

Of course, while the difference is meaningful in terms of depth of field, and in terms of the total amount of light reaching the sensor, in terms of the actual amount of light being recorded by the sensor, it's essentially a moot point. The only difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is really how much of a stealth ISO boost the camera applies to compensate for the fact that at apertures that wide, the additional light is at an angle too oblique for the sensor to detect (i.e. at f/1.2, the camera is adding 1/3 to over 1/2 of a stop to the ISO speed, but not reporting that gain in the EXIF).

 

[Meh]

isn't 1.2 only half a stop faster than 1.4?

Actually, it's one third of a stop faster.

Actually, it's both, or if you prefer, neither. On the half-stop scale, f/1.2 is 1/2-stop wider than f/1.4, but on the 1/3 stop scale, f/1.2 is 1/3-stop wider than f/1.4. See the wikipedia page on f/stops.

Mathematically, f/1.2 really is closest to a 1/2-stop, since 21/2×0.5 = 1.1892), whereas 22/3×0.5 = 1.2599, which personally I'd round to f/1.3.

Of course, while the difference is meaningful in terms of depth of field, and in terms of the total amount of light reaching the sensor, in terms of the actual amount of light being recorded by the sensor, it's essentially a moot point. The only difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is really how much of a stealth ISO boost the camera applies to compensate for the fact that at apertures that wide, the additional light is at an angle too oblique for the sensor to detect (i.e. at f/1.2, the camera is adding 1/3 to over 1/2 of a stop to the ISO speed, but not reporting that gain in the EXIF).

Really? That's it, I've had it. Bring back film!

 

[ferdi]

Actually, that would only be true if the 1.2 was really 1.2 and the 1.4 was really 1.4.

 

[psycho5]

the 16-35ii is IMHO, the best "walkaround" for the 1.6x crop bodies. Like a lot of new people getting ready to expand their choice of lenses, I listened to the forum photo gods and bought the Tokina 11-16. It was only after using a friends 16-35ii that I sold the tokina and spent an extra grand on the 16-35ii.

Yes, the Tokina is a good lens but the zoom range is rather useless... When I did have this lens, I left the zoom at 15mm and treated it as a 15mm 2.8 prime.

As someone who has owned both lenses, the 16-35ii is by far more useful and in my experience, produces better colors, sharper, and can handle Lens flare so much better than the $700 Tokina. Today, I always reach for the 16-35 for everyday shooting with the 60D and once the 5Diii comes out, the lens will remain useful.

If you are on a budget, the 17-40 is not too much more than the Tokina. Trust me, USM alone is worth the extra investment.

 

[Loswr]

the 16-35ii is IMHO, the best "walkaround" for the 1.6x crop bodies.

Personally, I think that title goes to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's got a more useful focal range (wide to short tele, vs. wide to normal, and the latter doesn't really fit my definition of a salkaround lens), it has IS, and it's sharper than the 16-35 L II when both are used on the same crop body.

Only reasons I can see for the 16-35mm II are if you require weather resistance (i.e. you have a 7D - and the OP has a T1i/500D), if you are planning on getting a FF body in the very near future, or you have both FF and APS-C and want to use the lens on both (in my case, I do have both FF and APS-C, and I have the 16-35mm II, but I kept the 17-55mm because it's a better lens on my 7D).

 

[psycho5]

the 16-35ii is IMHO, the best "walkaround" for the 1.6x crop bodies.

Personally, I think that title goes to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's got a more useful focal range (wide to short tele, vs. wide to normal, and the latter doesn't really fit my definition of a salkaround lens), it has IS, and it's sharper than the 16-35 L II when both are used on the same crop body.

Only reasons I can see for the 16-35mm II are if you require weather resistance (i.e. you have a 7D - and the OP has a T1i/500D), if you are planning on getting a FF body in the very near future, or you have both FF and APS-C and want to use the lens on both (in my case, I do have both FF and APS-C, and I have the 16-35mm II, but I kept the 17-55mm because it's a better lens on my 7D).

This topic led me to start a new post... and I would agree with you if the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS was an L lens, built like it could last a long time and was weather sealed.

 

[Loswr]

This topic led me to start a new post... and I would agree with you if the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS was an L lens, built like it could last a long time and was weather sealed.

It delivers L-series equivalent optical performance, with a build quality that is matched to the xxD bodies. The build-quality of L-series lenses is matched to 1-series bodies.

If build quality is most important to you, then the 16-35mm L II is a better choice. Personally, I think optical quality is most important - the image is what matters, which is why I use the 17-55mm on my 7D.

 

[Crapking]

Here's few shots if you like....JPEG right out of the camera (minimal, no PP) except the B/W which I simply desaturated b/c of horrible gym lighting angle and no time to properly process

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/xqW5Q7HX/1/5356457

http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/external/9499183_5080427_125668733_Web_2/0_0_ba6751b2a2954020af863e3904b1b580_1