EF 16-35 f/4L, Now that it's been out for a while, what are your thoughts?
- Thread starter slclick
- Start date
Nethawk said:
I used to own an EF-S 10-22 that I used with my T2i and 7D before I moved to FF. I have hundreds of terrific pictures with it. If you compare the 10-22 (on 60D) with 16-35/4 IS (on 1Ds Mkiii) its a night and day difference in favor of the newer EF lens on a full format body.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1
Upvote
0
I sold my 16-35/2.8 II recently and picked up this lens. It is a great lens and an amazing buy for the price. The main reasons I bought it were the image stabilization and better IR handling. So far it has proved worthy in both areas.
Here are several photos I have taken recently with it.
This one is a hand held HDR.
Marymoor Windmill by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
Infrared (unconverted camera + filter)
IMG_0012-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
Hand held. 1/5 second.
Haunted House by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
Here are several photos I have taken recently with it.
This one is a hand held HDR.
Marymoor Windmill by CalevPhoto, on FlickrInfrared (unconverted camera + filter)
IMG_0012-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on FlickrHand held. 1/5 second.
Haunted House by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
Upvote
0
Perhaps a dumb question but here goes anyway. How much of a handicap would you experienced guys consider not taking the 24-70 F4 but going with the 16-35 F4 and the 70-200 F2.8. From my limited experience I seem to be at 24 a lot very often wishing for wider on landscapes and then sometimes at 70. Otherwise I'm with longer lenses shooting wildlife. I don't relish carrying too many lenses on mountain hikes especially when I've included my 300 F2.8.
Jack
Jack
Upvote
0
Jack Douglas said:
Jack, Focal lengths are so personal. Many would say do a LR (or whatever software you you) search on most used FL's. Then again it's limited to what glass you own and use. Personally I'm not much for the 35-70 range unless I'm shooting alternative such as film or Lensbaby selective focus. YMMV. I know many shooters who prefer the extremes, wider and tele and not 'normal'. However if you're packing quite a bit you might want to get that FL covered in a light and inexpensive way, i.e. pancake or Nifty Fifty. Neither of these will break the bank or back.
Funny you mentioned this because if I was going to carry two lenses right now for a random shoot, the 16-35 and 70-200 2.8 Mk2 would be my picks.
Not sure I answered your question but those are my ramblings ...
Upvote
0
Jack Douglas said:
Not too much, if you don't think you'll use it much on your hikes. Weight restrictions (travel, hiking or otherwise) will force you to miss some shots but you pick the lenses that will get you the most important shots. I'd bring a fast 50 if the weight allowed, just so I can use it in low light conditions, etc.
Upvote
0
Well, for me it's been unconditional love. I'm really a rank amateur when it comes to landscapes, my forte is wildlife photography and I've always been at the other end of the lens spectrum. But, when Canon offered the 16-35 I thought "why not?" and ordered it. I've been delighted with the results. It never occurred to me that IS would be a benefit on a wide angle lens. Not until I started photographing with it. But, I'm getting razor sharp results down to 1/30 with this lens and my hands just aren't that steady. And, as for sharpness, well, I never cease to be amazed by what this lens is capable of doing. I love it!
Upvote
0
I had my 17-40mm for a long time. It was my most used lens, but always thought it was a bit soft. Never thought the 16-35 2.8 II was much of an upgrade for IQ and didn't want/need the speed. I sold it and got the new 16-35 f4. What can I say.....it's fantastic!
Upvote
0
slclick and Random Orbits, thanks for those comments. I've not had any regrets about the 24-70 F4 other than it's not as wide as I like. I have enjoyed the tourist macro feature but could live without it and now I'm thinking 16-35 is for me.
I'm somewhat like Steven. A trip in May to Haida gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands) has me imagining the 16-35 would be wonderful and the cost is not really that bad, all things considered. I'll be looking for a deal before then.
Jack
I'm somewhat like Steven. A trip in May to Haida gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands) has me imagining the 16-35 would be wonderful and the cost is not really that bad, all things considered. I'll be looking for a deal before then.
Jack
Upvote
0
kirispupis said:I sold my 16-35/2.8 II recently and picked up this lens. It is a great lens and an amazing buy for the price. The main reasons I bought it were the image stabilization and better IR handling. So far it has proved worthy in both areas.
Here are several photos I have taken recently with it.
This one is a hand held HDR.
Infrared (unconverted camera + filter)
Hand held. 1/5 second.
Great shots!
Upvote
0
Jack Douglas said:
That's not a dumb question. it depends on your shooting style. If Im shooting weddings, events and group photos I like using the 24-70 or 24-105 with the 70-200. If I'm shooting landscapes or travel photos I use the 16-35 with the 70-200 and I rarely finding myself wanting the the range between. So it really depends on your needs and shooting style.
Upvote
0
Ryan85, it makes perfect sense to me. I imagine with my 6D I could get away with cropping into the missing range if need be. Making 35 into say a 55 equivalent - how much cropping would that represent?
Jack
Jack
Upvote
0
Jack Douglas said:
I'm not sure how cropping that'd represent. Maybe 65%? You'd defiemly lose a few mega pixels by cropping on the final image but you'd be fine doing that unless you were going to make a huge print, or really punish the pixels in Photoshop imp. But for web viewing, etc. I'd have know problem cropping from 35 to 55 with that lens and the 6d.
Upvote
0
Another question. With the 16-35 and 70-200 and two bodies 6D and 7DII, how would that influence responses to my first question. I'd probably also have my 300 on the 7DII (likely purchase). Is the 16-35 kind of wasted on the 7DII (dumb question??).
It seemed on hikes that if I didn't take the 300 X2 that's precisely when the little birdies would appear.
Jack
It seemed on hikes that if I didn't take the 300 X2 that's precisely when the little birdies would appear.
Jack
Upvote
0
Jack Douglas said:Another question. With the 16-35 and 70-200 and two bodies 6D and 7DII, how would that influence responses to my first question. I'd probably also have my 300 on the 7DII (likely purchase). Is the 16-35 kind of wasted on the 7DII (dumb question??).
It seemed on hikes that if I didn't take the 300 X2 that's precisely when the little birdies would appear.
Jack
I wouldn't say its a waste on the 7d2. If you want to go to your widest just put it on you 6d. You can always pick up a used 24-105 for a good price if you feel you're missing that range
Upvote
0
Are you expecting us to tell you something you already know? This is the best UWA for Canon. Take it as you self-Christmas gift.slclick said:
I owned the 10-22, 17-40 and 16-35L II and I was never happy because the borders sharpness. This is blew them out of water
Upvote
0
Similar threads
