Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 02 Mar 2015 (Monday) 21:25
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon 35 f2 versus 16-35 f4 FF versus 10-22 crop

 
solara
Senior Member
620 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Mar 02, 2015 21:25 |  #1

Just wondering for those with experience with these lenses how does the 16-35 compare to the 35 at f4 on full frame.

And how does the 16-35 on full frame compare to the 10-22 on a crop?


5D III, 7D | 17-55 f/2.8 | 16-35 f/4 | 24-105 f/4 | 85 f/1.8 | 135 f/2 | 70-200 f/4 IS | 580EX II | YN-560 | Manfrotto 190XPROB+498RC2

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Mar 02, 2015 23:42 |  #2

I don't know about the 35f2, but I think enough has been said about how good the 16-35f4 is. However, I would point out that 35mm is actually the weakest FL on the 16-35. So if you think you might be at the telephoto end a lot, it may not be the best value for money.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
MakisM1's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Mar 03, 2015 09:19 |  #3

The EF 35 f2 IS is 2 stops faster and sharper than the EF 16-35 IS at 35. From 16 to 34 mm, the zoom beats the prime like a drum!...:lol:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=0external link

The old EF 35 2.0 is worse at 35 mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=0external link

The 10-22 is not even in contention, as it gets penalized by the greater magnification factor for the crop.


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

LOG IN TO REPLY
Eastport
Senior Member
Eastport's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
Mar 03, 2015 10:05 as a reply to MakisM1's post |  #4

And while this thread is about full frames, wow, the 17-55 f/2.8 on crop looks really bad in comparison. Is it that bad of a lens? I always thought I just had a bad copy. Maybe TDP had a bad copy too!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=3external link




LOG IN TO REPLY
l89kip
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2010
Mar 03, 2015 11:21 |  #5

I take it with a grain of salts. Some of them are very different from reviews or personal experiences.


Gear: 7D II, 6D | EF-S 17-55 | 35/2, 85/1.8, 35 L,100L,135L, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 70-200 F/4L IS, Sigma 150-600 C | 580 EX II, 270 EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
MakisM1's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Mar 03, 2015 14:17 |  #6

l89kip wrote in post #17458603external link
I take it with a grain of salts. Some of them are very different from reviews or personal experiences.

Yes indeed, there is copy variation, but directionally what they show is correct (most of the time). The comments of users tend to corroborate it.


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

LOG IN TO REPLY
InfiniteDivide
"I wish to be spared"
InfiniteDivide's Avatar
Joined Dec 2013
Kawasaki, Japan
Mar 03, 2015 16:12 |  #7

While neither is a fast lens, I have owned both the 17-55 and the 10-22mm.
I had a very good copy of the 17-55mm and found it acceptably sharp across the frame at f2.8
The 17-55 stepped down to f4.0 with IS was great, as it should be on crop at that aperture.
I would buy this zoom lens again if I had a crop camera.

The 10-22mm lack overall sharpness except in the center. Much like the older 16-35mm on FF.
Less corner-sharpness than center-sharpness at almost any aperture.
I often stepped the 10-22 lens down to f5.6 or f.8.0 as well for a handheld landscape and urban lens.
I would skip this lens and buy the newer 10-18mm lens. I have used a friend's and can't find a flaw.


While I have never used the 16-35 f2.8 lens, based on other users comments I will be avoiding it.
On the contrary I have heard nothing but praise for the new 16-35 f4 IS


James Patrus
6D | 16-35L F4 | 24L II | 50L | 100L | |  -> Website (external link) & Gallery (external link)
For Sale:Canon 16-35mm f4 IS l Do you enjoy Super Famicom games? (external link) PM me directly.

LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
GeoKras1989's Avatar
Joined Jun 2014
Mar 03, 2015 19:06 |  #8
banned

I used to own the 10-22, and shot it on a 60D. The 17-40 on a 6D is a big improvement. 16-35 f/4 owners swear it is better than the 17-40. I can't argue, so I take their word for it.

If you are referring to the 35 IS (I own it) vs. the 16-35, I would put the 35 IS ahead at f/4. I've never even touched a 16-35 f/4, but you are comparing a two-stops-from-wide-open prime, to a zoom at two extremes: focal length and aperture. That one is generally going to go to the prime.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by MalVeauX.
Mar 03, 2015 21:01 |  #9

solara wrote in post #17457762external link
Just wondering for those with experience with these lenses how does the 16-35 compare to the 35 at f4 on full frame.

And how does the 16-35 on full frame compare to the 10-22 on a crop?

Heya,

At pixel peeping level?

Or printed at [Insert size]?

Or looked at on the web, at best, on a 4k setup?

That's what really matters in terms of answering your question.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link) :: Canon 17-40L For Sale! $380!

LOG IN TO REPLY
corndog ­ cabernet
Senior Member
corndog cabernet's Avatar
Joined May 2010
State of chaos
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by corndog cabernet. 3 edits done in total.
Mar 04, 2015 06:33 |  #10

I have the 35 f2 IS, the 16-35 F4L, and a Tokina 12-24. When I bought the Tokina I extensively A-B tested it against the Canon 10-22 and thought the Tokina better.
I use the 35 and 16-35 on a 6D. The Tokina on a 7D.

Here's my take…

If all you used were a 1.6 camera, the 12-24 is a good lens. As good as a Canon 17-40L, with more useful focal lengths on crop format.

On a FF cam both the 35 F2 and 16-35 F4 are excellent lenses. Comparing them is difficult however as they are really quite different. I suppose the prime lens will be slightly better than the zoom at 35mm and F4, but the prime opens to F2. And that makes it special. This lens at F2 is just beautiful, and with it's IS and mounted on a good high ISO cam like a 6D it makes for a compelling low light, high performance setup.

The 16-35 F4 is, frankly, the best wide zoom I've ever used. I find the IQ on a par the excellent Tokina 16-28 but w/o the flare issues, weight, filter issue, bulk, and vulnerability. And, it has very useful IS.

From a completely subjective POV, I enjoy using the 35mm prime most.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
solara
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
620 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by solara.
Mar 05, 2015 14:05 |  #11

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. Mainly wanted user opinions that you can't get just by looking at focus chart tests which can be unreliable if they happen to have a bad copy (17-55 from the-digital-picture).

@MalVeaux, at pixel peeping level.

My main preference is for the primes since they give such sharper pictures with better subject isolation. But with a toddler charging at you every time you point the camera at them, a zoom is a
necessary compromise and I find my 24-105 is just not wide enough for smaller environments, etc. (bounce house!).


5D III, 7D | 17-55 f/2.8 | 16-35 f/4 | 24-105 f/4 | 85 f/1.8 | 135 f/2 | 70-200 f/4 IS | 580EX II | YN-560 | Manfrotto 190XPROB+498RC2

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Mar 05, 2015 14:15 |  #12

solara wrote in post #17462069external link
@MalVeaux, at pixel peeping level.
.

In that case, no lens will satisfy and every lens will have fault. Just a matter of what degree of fault you will tolerate.

The 35 prime will be sharper, because it's stopped down to be at the same aperture as the zoom. Much sharper? No. Very minute.

The 16-35 will be sharper on a full frame, than the 10-22 on APS-C for a pixel peeper. It will be near indistinguishable on a web-image or normal print.

Based on what you described, the 16-35 makes more sense for you. If you need wider than 24mm on full frame to capture things in tight space, going ultrawide is the only way.

For reference, I chase my toddler around with a 10-22 & APS-C with ETTL flash in the house. Otherwise, 35 & 85 primes on full frame for purposeful and candid portrait.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link) :: Canon 17-40L For Sale! $380!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Kumsa
Member
Kumsa's Avatar
196 posts
Joined May 2010
Northern Virginia
Jun 02, 2015 11:03 as a reply to MalVeauX's post |  #13

Canon has a refurb'd 35 F2 IS USM at a good price. I love this lens.

These refurb units usually aren't available for very long.

http://shop.usa.canon.​com ...mm-f-2-is-usm-refurbishedexternal link


T2i / 6D / Canon 35 f2 IS USM / Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 / EF-S 55-250mm / Sigma 70-200 2.8 / Sigma Tele 2.x / Samyang 14mm / Yong Nuo 568Ex's / Yong Nuo 622 / Pixma Pro-100 / Epson P800 / ColorHug / Tokina 100mm AT-X M100 AF PRO D / Yongnuo YN-14ex
Ubuntu / PrintFab-TurboPrint / AfterShot Pro / GIMP / Zerene Stacker
LeadershipByNumbers (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
GeoKras1989's Avatar
Joined Jun 2014
Jun 05, 2015 07:24 |  #14
banned

MakisM1 wrote in post #17458401external link
The EF 35 f2 IS is 2 stops faster and sharper than the EF 16-35 IS at 35. From 16 to 34 mm, the zoom beats the prime like a drum!...:lol:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=0external link

The old EF 35 2.0 is worse at 35 mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=0external link

The 10-22 is not even in contention, as it gets penalized by the greater magnification factor for the crop.

When I first bought the 10-22, I went on, ad infinitum, about how good it was on my 60D. At some point, I bought a 17-40 for use on my 6D. Owning both setups at the same time allowed me to get a really good look at both, under the same conditions. Gerry is right; the 10-22 is really good, but it isn't full frame. Even the lowly, much-maligned 17-40 handily beats in every regard, except that 1mm at the wide end. The 17-40 on crop is actually better than the 10-22, but then it is a very different focal range.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

LOG IN TO REPLY
cali92rs
Member
179 posts
Joined Oct 2014
Long Beach, CA
Jun 09, 2015 19:02 |  #15

I had the 35mm F2 IS...I sold it to help fund the 16-35mm f4.
I wanted the flexibility of the zoom, and to go WIDE.

From an IQ standpoint, the 35mm f2 IS was superior until about f8, then the differences were so small, I couldn't tell even at 100%.
Looking at a computer screen at 100 percent you can tell the differences...in prints, nah. The important difference is the 2 stop advantage, not so much the IQ advantage.


6D, 16-35mm f4L IS, 24-105mm f4L, 50mm f1.8 STM, 135mm f2L, Tamron 70-300mm VC

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

4,988 views & 1 like for this thread
Canon 35 f2 versus 16-35 f4 FF versus 10-22 crop
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00438 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is AlexThimisy
973 guests, 452 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017