Perplexed by 16-35 F2.8 and 1.6x crop

[Sean-Mcr]

I had this lens and returned it, when the fault was actually with me looking back. Sorry I made that mistake, but if you don’t make mistakes you don’t make anything they say.



Now I’m thinking again about buying another.


Looking about $1800 US for it over here, I don’t mind paying for quality. That’s not the issue making me think about the pro’s and cons. Obviously I would not be getting the best of this lens without a full frame, which is where a lot of the expense is. It’s more complex to make wides


Of course the crop affects all lenses, but it’s detrimental on wides on the hole . So is it a good idea paying $1800 when so much is being cropped. There’s the 17-40 of course but the extra mm and most of all stop is what made me get the 16-35 in the first place



Basically is the cost of the 16-35 too much when so much of it’s being cropped?


Cheers

Sean

[etaf]

well if you want the wide angle of 35mm equivalent then you need to get the 16/17mm and the quality will be also affected at the large apertures )f4, f2.8 etc.
Cheap lenses like the 70-300mm canon lens I have is OK at around F8 using the centre of lens and still a little soft at the 300mm end - but i cant afford the"L" glass
so as you open the aperture and use more of the glass - you want to keep the quality.

someone with a lot more knowledge on how the lens area, aperture and sensor interact - but looking at images on here the L glass always get great reviews on 1.6x crop camera

[Sean-Mcr]

I'm sorry it's not about the quality of the lens with that camera i'm talking about, i had the lens i know it's quality and how it works on the camera. What i'm actually asking is paying $1800 for a 16-35 when because of the crop it's losing over 8mm at the wide end which is huge, and a good amount of what that lens can do and where a lot of the money is, is being cropped off.

[xuxu1]

I'm sorry it's not about the quality of the lens with that camera i'm talking about, i had the lens i know it's quality and how it works on the camera. What i'm actually asking is paying $1800 for a 16-35 when because of the crop it's losing over 8mm at the wide end which is huge, and a good amount of what that lens can do and where a lot of the money is, is being cropped off.
Please note that nobody is forcing you to buy a 1.6 crop camera body. The 16-35mm is also a great lens on 1D series bodys! with no or only 1.3 crop depending on model.

ED

[Sean-Mcr]

I Know nobody is forcing me to buy anythying.

I don't have a D1 or or a full frame obviously, i'd not be asking for opinions if i did, i have a 20D.

It will be a good time before i have a full frame, simply because of the cost.

[Dante King]

I think this lens is worth every penny on a 1.6 crop body or a FF body. I am on holiday and almost all my shots are with taken with it. LOVE IT!

[Sean-Mcr]

Dont get me wrong Dante, the lens is great. I can't fault the lens at all, and it's most likely that i'll buy one again, like most if the people here the lenses i plan to buy will stay with me beyond most bodies i'll own (guess i just answered my own question there).

Just so much lost with that crop, and it's going to be sooooo long before i get a full frame.

[xuxu1]

Just so much lost with that crop.....
So an expensive Cadillac. I´m just driving around the block a few times with the car. Don´t understand. :(

ED

[Alexandre Gabriel]

Sean,

Given your first post, I don't think the 17-40 is the right lens for you. I'd love to have this lens, but I respect your opinion.
Do you need real 16mm wide AND low light ability? If so, today it's impossible to you to have these qualities with a 20D.
If you choose WA, you can try the EF-s 10-22, this lens is 16-35mm equiv. and is known to be almost as good as an L lens.
If you choose low light, you can try 16-35L or some prime (say, 14L).
If you don't mind paying for quality, try some 1D cameras if you can. The cheapest digital 1 series, dustproof, 45-point AF, and 1.3 crop. Almost as expensive as an 16-35L.

[Sean-Mcr]

Thanks for the replies guys,

Alex,

The 10-22 is a fine lens but as i shoot alot indoors using available light, it's aperture being F3.5 and not being constant make it's a no for me

For now it's going to be lenes i invest in, and i'll be patiant and get a full frame.

I have looked at the 14mm prime to, i have a thing for primes actually.

I guess i'm really thinking out load here guys, i just wanted to get opinions and not answers really

Thanks for the replies:)

[skyphix]

bodies come and go, lenses are around for a while (until they change their mount completely). You can always get a 1 series, and in the mean time you'll have a great 26-56 F2.8L (35mm equiv) Lens, which is still a decent film wide angle.

I say go for it - especially if you need the low light capabilities.

[ssim]

I'm always perplexed with photographers post-purchase disappointment in cameras that are not full frame.

I have the 16-35 and use it on both of my bodies, one a 1.6 crop and the other 1.3 crop. You learn to live with the limitations that you are presented with given the equipment at hand. If you know that you want something wider than this lens gives you then make a different purchase.

For me I know it's the widest thing that I have and I live with it. The crop factor in my opinion is overly criticized by photographers that like to shoot at the wide angle end of the photographic spectrum.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thanks for the replies guys,

Alex,

The 10-22 is a fine lens but as i shoot alot indoors using available light, it's aperture being F3.5 and not being constant make it's a no for me


....which really leaves the 16-35mm as your only choice in a zoom... as the 17-40mm is too slow as well.

Alll that's left is the 14mm prime.

[condyk]

Seany

What about the TOKINA 12–24mm f/4 DX AT-X Pro AF, built like the proverbial BSH, and add in a big, bright and shiny, top of the range Canon 580EX flash. Not good for your secret candids tho' I suppose, but a bit of decent weight if you get attacked down an alley :lol: :lol:

[Sean-Mcr]

post-purchase disappointment

The dissapointment i actually had with my copy was of my own making, and had nothing actually to do with the crop.

It's just something i'm now getting opinions on, and not something that be sure to stop me getting another copy

Dave, flash is just not my thing right now

CDS,

That is of course right;)

[eosnob]

I don't have the 16-35, but have been wondering the same as Sean. Is the 1mm WA worth the extra cost on a 20D? Can't say I've come to any conclusions, but might be swayed by the extra f-stop if I come across an affordable used copy :p

[Sean-Mcr]

It's the extra stop over the 17-40 (which is too slow for me) where the money really is

[grego]

The 16-35 mm is a hot lens because of its variability and speed. It's used by all photo journalists that use Canon. In the film sense, it will give you a 20.8 mm at its widest(with 1.3 crop) and 25.6mm(1.6 crop). It's the digital version of that 20-28mm that photo journalists used on film before making the transition. You buy it with the idea that you are going to get a lens that is at its widest in the 20 to 25mm range. That's why its so expensive.

If you want something wider, go for it, but Canon's is built for the professional and that's why its expensive and worth it.

There are many great alternatives out there for you if you need something wider.

[Sean-Mcr]

what i'm talking about is that the lens was not designed with a 1.6x crop in mind. A large part of the lens capabilty is being lost, a lot of the cost is in that lost 8mm. I'd not be talking about this of course if i never had a 20D, but it's what i have, and will have for some time to come

The lens of course is fantastic, my 20D's fantastic, just that 8mm is a lot to lose and a lot to pay for.

I'm thinking out loud here more then anything, hope people can see i'm not putting down the lens (how could i)

[malla1962]

what i'm talking about is that the lens was not designed with a 1.6x crop in mind. A large part of the lens capabilty is being lost, a lot of the cost is in that lost 8mm. I'd not be talking about this of course if i never had a 20D, but it's what i have, and will have for some time to come

The lens of course is fantastic, my 20D's fantastic, just that 8mm is a lot to lose and a lot to pay for.

I'm thinking out loud here more then anything, hope people can see i'm not putting down the lens (how could i)
maybe you should think about the efs10-22 and you will be someware near.i would love a 16-35 for my 20d but not at the price so i got the 17-40 and love it.it seems plenty wide for me and if i get a ff or a 1.3 it will be a bit wider.the question you are asking can only be answerd by yourself as its your cash.i bet theres a lot of people with the 20d,10d and 300d with the 16-35.:rolleyes:

[grego]

what i'm talking about is that the lens was not designed with a 1.6x crop in mind. A large part of the lens capabilty is being lost, a lot of the cost is in that lost 8mm. I'd not be talking about this of course if i never had a 20D, but it's what i have, and will have for some time to come

The lens of course is fantastic, my 20D's fantastic, just that 8mm is a lot to lose and a lot to pay for.

I'm thinking out loud here more then anything, hope people can see i'm not putting down the lens (how could i)

Actually, its the perfect lens for a wide angle for a photo journalist. It's like a 25mm at 1.6, so that's your basic 28mm so to speak.

But if you really think its a waste, there are many out there like others have mentioned. Nothing to get frustrated over.

[Sean-Mcr]

Thanks for all the replies guys:)


Sean