Need another lense

[Eric23]

Hi Guys,

I am just a begginer. I want to get a second lense for my 20D. I was thinking of the 16-35 f/2.8 L USM. Is that a good lense? (I need something for landscape and group photos) What would be the best second lesnse to get? I already have a 24-70 f/2.8 L USM.

Thanks for the help.

Eric

[coreypolis]

the 16-36L is a great lens, the best wide angle available for the canon setup without going through adapters using zeiss etc

Since you are alreadey accustomed to the 24-70L there should be no issue at all with the weight or size. And best of all, its internal zooming unlike your current lens

[liza]

It's a very good lens and would complement your 24-70 well.

[Marom]

It's a very good expensive lens, do you like wide angle or do you want more reach? If you want more reach you could go for a 70-200 2.8 IS or if your money burns in your wallet you could go for both.:D

[stupot]

It's a very good expensive lens, do you like wide angle or do you want more reach? If you want more reach you could go for a 70-200 2.8 IS or if your money burns in your wallet you could go for both.:D

its for landscapes and group shots.

16-35 would be great im sure. dont forget about the new 17-55 2.8IS or the 17-40.

if you're going to be shooting groups at night, perhaps a fast prime would be better suited?

[BigBlueDodge]

While the 16-35 is a great lens, it is really expensive as well. For a 20D, I don't know if you'll be satisfied with 16mm as your wide angle, especially since you are interested in landscapes. Have you given thought to the Canon 10-22 lens? It is as sharp as the 16-35, and much more usable for landscapes IMO on a crop camera.

[BigBlueDodge]

Also, if you don't absolutely need f/2.8, I think the Canon 17-40L is a better buy. It is just as sharp as the 16-35, just a notch slower.

[Tapeman]

Welcome to the forum. Say goodbye to your money
The 16-35 is the best wide angle zoom Canon makes. Go for it!

[JonathanS]

Also, if you don't absolutely need f/2.8, I think the Canon 17-40L is a better buy. It is just as sharp as the 16-35, just a notch slower.

agreed, and look here for a comparison:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

I have just finished researching the 17-40L and decided it was the best lens for me- so I ordered it. It shipped from B&H last night and is due to arrive friday! (been checking the tracking once every two hours or so :p )

[pturton]

The 16-35L, 24-70L and 70-200 L IS are the top 3 zooms that pros prefer for everyhing from weddings to pj. Since I'm not a pro and never want to be one, I decided to fill my focal length range with fast primes instead of zooms. I seriously considered these three zooms for some time but only purchased the 70-200 + some primes, 35, 50, 85, 100 macro, 135, 300 & 400 since I'm not a wide angle type. If the 16-35L is anything like the 70-200 L IS, it is a great buy.

Think about the 35L so you have at least one fast and awesome prime. On a 20D, it is good for group shots, street, portraits and landscape. Only con to this lens is how hard it is to get off the camera body. Landscape can be shot with anything from fisheye to 600mm+ depending on the point of view that you want to express.

Welcome to the forum. We love to help each other spend $$$.

[Eric23]

Thanks for the info guys. I am just using a 20D for now while I go to school but plan to upgrade after. The price tag is high on the 16-35 2.8 but is it worth it? I was also looking at the 17-40 but I wanted to spend my money on lenses that is why I picked up a cheeper SLR (the 20D sure takes great pictures I am real happy with it). I am mostly looking for a lense that will do group photos and a bit of landsacpes. I plan on getting a 70-200 later on.

[steved110]

I'd strongly suggest getting the 17-40 rather than the 16-35 - it's hard to see why you'd need the extra stop for landscapes, possibly in low light for groups, only you know if you really need it. and it has arguably better image quality.
The 16 mm may not be quite wide enough if you want to go really wide - so consider the 10-22.
35mm on the long end is not very long at all, the 40mm on the other lens gives a better 'standard' view on the 20D.
I'd also seriosuly suggest gettign the 17-55 2.8 IS - it seems an awesome lens, super fast and an excellent zoom range.
Remember as time goes by, well-looked after lenses can be sold often for a high percentage of their original price, so upgrading as your needs change is not hard or wasteful.

Have you found this review site, it covers all the canon lenses in decent detail, and may give you some ideas. He also has a section of lens recommendations for various purposes, that is quite helpful.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

[hef]

Read my lips... oh i mean my "Equipment List"... The 16-35 is 2 different lenses on my 30d and 5d and it is a fantastic lens... If you can afford it, then why settle for anything else.

[pturton]

Eric,
Interesting read: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/398532

I have a feeling from your post that you know what you are doing and what you want. The 16-35L is a few leagues up from the 17-40L. You show your priorities knowing that bodies come and go but lenses last longer, much longer. Buying cheap costs more in the long run because a serious user will need to replace the compromise with the quality desired in the first place.

[genewch]

I'll also recommend the 17-40mm f4. It's just as sharp as the expensive 16-35mm and just half the price. You'll get a wonderful lens with outstanding colour rendition, strong build, weatherproof barrel, and still very good range on 1.6x crop factor cameras (28-64mm). I think the only advantage of the 16-35mm is the f2.8 aperture. You need twice the cost to buy an extra aperture stop. If you are comfortable with EF-S lenses, the 17-55mm f2.8 worths taking a look. Of course many good choices are available, like Tokina 12-24mm and Sigma 12-24mm.

[René Damkot]

I'ld say EF-S: 10-22 or 17-55. First is wider then the 16-35 (for landscapes), second has IS (for groupshots in bad light)

[Billginthekeys]

okay. well since it seems he plans on going full frame in the future, and wants to buy lenses he wont have to replace, no offence but it seems worthless to reccomend him EF-S lenses. Now, as for the 16-35. i have used both the 16-35 and the 17-40. both are great lenses optically, and neither will make you unhappy. If you can afford the 2.8, go ahead and get it. i personally didnt need that much light at that length and wanted more money for a tele, so i went with the also awesome 17-40.

[grego]

The 16-35/17-40 on a 1.6 crop is a standard wide angle, so its not the end of the world. So if you do move up to full frame, it's probably the best one to stick with.

[Eric23]

Thanks for all you input.

I will be going with a full frame later. I think I will go with the 16-35 2.8 I realy like a fast lense.

Thanks,

Eric

[hef]

Thanks for all you input.

I will be going with a full frame later. I think I will go with the 16-35 2.8 I realy like a fast lense.

Thanks,

Eric

Good choice. A lens for the future!

[ACDCROCKS]

What about a 10-22mm?

[Eric23]

What about a 10-22mm?

I want to keep my lenses if I get a full frame in the future so I am going to get the 16-35.

Thanks for the help.

Eric

[Eric23]

I picked up my a 16-35 2.8 used last night for half the price of a new one.

I like it a lot it :)

[Dorman]

I'd go with the 17-40 F/4L and the 70-200 F/4L, unless you really need the speed of 2.8

This would give you a dream setup, 17-40L, 24-70 2.8 L, and 70-200 F/4 L mmmmmmmmm!

[steved110]

I picked up my a 16-35 2.8 used last night for half the price of a new one.

I like it a lot it :)
You made a good choice, especially if you got it for such a good price!
Looking at your sig, your next lens has GOT to be the 70-200 f/2.8 IS

Then you'll have the Zoomy Trinity and can start wortk on getting some serious primes....it never ends!

[Eric23]

You made a good choice, especially if you got it for such a good price!
Looking at your sig, your next lens has GOT to be the 70-200 f/2.8 IS

Then you'll have the Zoomy Trinity and can start wortk on getting some serious primes....it never ends!

I want to get a 135L or a Macro lens next, but I think I will have to wait a while.:)

[grego]

I picked up my a 16-35 2.8 used last night for half the price of a new one.

I like it a lot it :)
\
Half the price? How did you get it for so little money?

[Eric23]

\
Half the price? How did you get it for so little money?

I guess I was in the right place at the right time :)