How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. I previously found the same thing with my 17-40mmL.

I use it on my 5D MK III.

I do low light photography, and have analyzed the photos I've taken. Almost all of them are at f/2.8 and fall in the 24-35mm range of focal lengths. They also required that I boost my camera ISO to very high levels, often 25600.


I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to. It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.

Perhaps a 24mm L to go with my 35mmL, or a 24-70mm f/2.8 to replace it?

Here is a example taken at 35mm, ISO 25600. It was in blue light, which explains the tint. There is lots of noise, but it prints well at 8 X 10.

16-35mmL @ 35mm ISO 25600

I think I like the one taken with my 85mm f/1.8 at f/2 and ISO 16000 better. Maybe a 85mm f/1.2?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

"Impulse buying", oh yes I am an expert at that :-[
Anyway, I use my 16-35LII quite a bit as I make lot of drilling rig pics and really like its wide angle view, comes in real handy for me in the somewhat cramped quarters of rig floors. I don't shoot with primes much so can't comment much on your prime lens choices, but I had 24-70L II (I say "had" coz it was stolen), and if you like the sharpness of 16-35, you will absolutely love sharpness of 24-70L II (I'm assuming u r taking about the L II version)

 

[c.d.embrey]

Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. ...

I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to. It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.

Lenses are simply tools, if you don't need this tool sell it.

You have fallen into the trap of "everybody has one so I need one too."

 

[Loswr]

I use mine occasionally, but I wouldn't say frequently. Mostly for travel and city walkabouts. Unlike you, a bit over 60% of my shots with the lens are in the 16-24mm focal range.

Here are some from a relatively recent trip to San Francisco. The first is a long exposure on a tripod, the second two were high ISO to keep the shutter speed up (1/200 s for the last one, which was taken up through the windshield with the camera resting on the dashboard as I drove across the Golden Gate Bridge at 50 mph ). All with the 1D X, 16mm, 17mm, and 20mm, and ISO 200, 12800, and 25600, respectively.

 

[pedro]

Just bought a 16-35 F/2.8 L USM II today, second hand. looks like new, in perfect shape. I will use it very often, same I did with my 10-222 on the 30D. After this purchase I am quite done with lenses for my type of photography. Maybe I'll go for a 8-15 F/4 fisheye much later down the road. But the 16-35 is a standard lens for me. Along with the 50 F/1.4. I am excited about the price point: Paid CHF 998.00, brick and mortar store. Current Retail price: CHF 1998.00 or a little less. Online: from CHF 1367.00. So I consider it a pretty good deal.

 

[RS2021]

I will have to say "meh"...not that much. It is a good performer, and I defend it here against those who rag on it with Nikon's 14-24.... but it is also fair to say that it is not one of those superb products that drives you to use it or motivates you.

It falls under the "I guess it will do" category. :-X

 

[jcatterino]

Just bought a 16-35 F/2.8 L USM II today, second hand. looks like new, in perfect shape. I will use it very often, same I did with my 10-222 on the 30D. After this purchase I am quite done with lenses for my type of photography. Maybe I'll go for a 8-15 F/4 fisheye much later down the road. But the 16-35 is a standard lens for me. Along with the 50 F/1.4. I am excited about the price point: Paid CHF 998.00, brick and mortar store. Current Retail price: CHF 1998.00 or a little less. Online: from CHF 1367.00. So I consider it a pretty good deal.

WOW... Great price!!

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Not so much, actually. And I was just thinking the other day about whether or not I should sell mine, too. I'm not sure, but I'm leaning that direction.

When I do use it, I tend to use it full wide. And, any more, when I'm looking for something that wide, either I wind up doing a panorama or I'm reaching for the 8-15.

At the longer end...well, since my favorite lens is the TS-E 24, it wouldn't even occur to me to grab the 16-35 for something in that focal length range. And, as I type, I've got the 1.4x mounted to the TS-E 24, and I'm just waiting for the motions to die out on a mobile wood sculpture so I can take the shot. And for when I'm not doing tripod work, I've got both the 24-105 and 35L that cover the longer end.

So, the question for me really comes down to when I'd want a 16-24 (because I've got 24-35 covered much better) that I wouldn't want the fisheye and I also wouldn't be able to do a panorama of some type. And, honestly? Unless I start doing some sort of event work in tight quarters, I really just don't see that happening all that often.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Dylan777]

On 16-35 lens, I only shoot at 16 to 25ish. If you shoot alot from 24-35mm, I highly recommend the new 24-70 f2.8 II. You think your 16-35 sharp at f2.8? wait until to shoot 24-70 at wide open

 

[gjones5252]

I actually use mine quite a bit. So much so that I am trying to slow down. I use it a ton for event photography which is a horrible idea in my opinion. Its distortion can really mess with people if they are not center frame. I have the 24-105 and i do not like it so i end up going with 16-35 zoomed in to lessen the amount of distortion.
It is amazing for video. I cannot stress how great this lens is to use for any video i do. Just enough zoom and goes wide enough i can get a full room in a shot.
Basically i wouldnt sell it to get another lens. I love my wide angle i just need to learn to use it at the right times.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

On 16-35 lens, I only shoot at 16 to 25ish. If you shoot alot from 24-35mm, I highly recommend the new 24-70 f2.8 II. You think your 16-35 sharp at f2.8? wait until to shoot 24-70 at wide open

I've been planning to buy the 24-70mm MK II. I had five of the MK I versions and hated them all, so I'm a bit gun shy.
I have far too many lenses, so I am selling some off. I sold 5 lenses this week (two of my 50mm f/1.4's, a 50mm f/1.8 MK I, my 85mm f/1.8, my old and unused 100-300mm USM, and have my 70-200mm f/4 IS listed). I just bought my third 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII, and I'll keep it.
My main concern is low light, images shot at over ISO 3200 suffer noticeably, but look fairly good up to ISO 12800. Higher is problematic and needs a perfect exposure.

I might go for a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 if the 70-200 is not fast enough. My 135mm f/2 is my favorite, but I'm getting so I cannot move around well in the dark of a theatre going up and down steps. I'm diabetic and have no feeling in my feet to feel the edges of the steps, so I look down or go slowly. A zoom would minimize moving around.

I shoot at dress rehearsals and can move around a lot, even walk up on the stage, but its getting unsafe for me.

Here is the theater from the stage (one of my few 16mm shots)! The steps are not bad, but when you can't easily see or feel them, its a problem. I use that table in the center and line up all my primes and then move around to get different perspectives. I'm pretty good at changing lenses quickly in the dark.

 

[Etienne]

16-35 is my most used lens.
I like wide.

My ideal lens would be a small, light weight, 17-28 2.8 that was sharp and contrasty everywhere. I'd even take 17-24 2.8 if it helped the designers make it small and still perform well.

 

[BrettS]

(I say "had" coz it was stolen)

That sux bud. Sorry. :-(

 

[robrosenq]

I had shot on a 7D for a few years, and due to the crop factor, used my 16-35 L a lot more then. Now that I have a 5 D III, with full frame, the 16-35 is now a niche lens, with the 24-105 L the main "walk around" lens for the 5 D. However, the 16-35 is still very useful for very tall or very wide objects, such as urban skyscrapers, or National Park scenery. I was able to put the 16-35 to very good use recently on a trip to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada, to shoot the aurora borealis/northern lights. I had rented a 24 mm L f/1.4 for the trip, but found out that the wider field at 16 mm was very useful for capturing the wide grandeur of the scenes. Here are a couple of images shot with the 16-35 L, at f/2.8, ISO 640, and 25 seconds.

 

[dirtcastle]

I have a similar "meh" attitude about this lens. It is a practical lens, but not very inspiring. And the distortion at the wide is a bit of a buzzkill for me. I would much rather be stuck with the inconvenience of primes. But, to be fair, the 16-35L is a relatively good deal for the price, especially because is a durable lens with quick AF and 16-35mm is a big range at the wide end.

The hard part about not liking this lens is... "What's the alternative?" For me, a 14L is not practical for the price and I don't want to deal with a filter-less lens until I'm filthy rich (not yet). A 24L would be a good deal, but its a bit close to a 35mm and leaves the < 24mm range uncovered.

Obviously, a lot of people are hoping for a 14-24mm L. But I feel like one of the great virtues of this lens is the coverage. I would be just as excited about a distortion-less 16mm f/2 (that takes filters) as I would about a 14-24mm L.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Obviously, a lot of people are hoping for a 14-24mm L.

There've even been some rumblings about a 12-24, which is something that would really get me to sit up and pay attention to.

Not quite sure just what the Hell I'd do with such a beast...but, boy, would it be fun trying to figure that out. Especially if it has a very close minimum focus distance....

Cheers,

b&

 

[rpt]

I use mine occasionally, but I wouldn't say frequently. Mostly for travel and city walkabouts. Unlike you, a bit over 60% of my shots with the lens are in the 16-24mm focal range.

Here are some from a relatively recent trip to San Francisco. The first is a long exposure on a tripod, the second two were high ISO to keep the shutter speed up (1/200 s for the last one, which was taken up through the windshield with the camera resting on the dashboard as I drove across the Golden Gate Bridge at 50 mph ). All with the 1D X, 16mm, 17mm, and 20mm, and ISO 200, 12800, and 25600, respectively.

The second one with the swan is lovely!

 

[bdunbar79]

I don't shoot much anymore with my 16-35L II lens, because it's just not practical for sports, which is all I've been doing lately. This spring and summer I will use it a lot more.

Even if Canon releases a 14-24 or 12-24, those will still suffer from the same problems the 16-35 does.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. ...

I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to. It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.

Lenses are simply tools, if you don't need this tool sell it.

You have fallen into the trap of "everybody has one so I need one too."

How much do you use your 16-35mmL? That was the question.

I did not ask for selling advice, I'll be able to make that decision. I was merely wondering if my 1200 some images over the past 7 months was sufficient usage.

 

[bdunbar79]

Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. ...

I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to. It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.

Lenses are simply tools, if you don't need this tool sell it.

You have fallen into the trap of "everybody has one so I need one too."

How much do you use your 16-35mmL? That was the question.

I did not ask for selling advice, I'll be able to make that decision. I was merely wondering if my 1200 some images over the past 7 months was sufficient usage.

Don't sweat his posts. They are typically combative and difficult.