Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

[Visuals]

Originally Posted by Lord_Malone

Oh God. Now you've done it. Reviving this old thread. Any minute now mbze430 is going to show up with his collection of photos to show you just how bad the 16-35L really is.

Dude, Your funny man..
Okay check it... I got the 35mm 1.4L. It cut me today something really bad.
Will be getting the 16-35mm f2.8 soon... Im following in yall foot steps..

[Tom W]

Originally Posted by Lord_Malone

Oh God. Now you've done it. Reviving this old thread. Any minute now mbze430 is going to show up with his collection of photos to show you just how bad the 16-35L really is.

Actually, the 16-35 isn't the best lens in my bag, but it's the best ultra-wide lens I have owned (except for the fisheye). I've tried 3 different 20 mm primes and the 17-40 and my 16-35 is the best of them. It's a keeper...

[Lord_Malone]

Originally Posted by Tom W

Actually, the 16-35 isn't the best lens in my bag, but it's the best ultra-wide lens I have owned (except for the fisheye). I've tried 3 different 20 mm primes and the 17-40 and my 16-35 is the best of them. It's a keeper...

Thanks, Tom. That's all I've been trying to say this whole time.

[Tom W]

Originally Posted by Lord_Malone

Thanks, Tom. That's all I've been trying to say this whole time.

I guess I should have thrown an image into the discussion. From last fall (nothing fancy, just playing around) ....

[mbze430]

There is THIS one lens....

Leica

[YunusEmre]

Originally Posted by mbze430

There is THIS one lens....

Leica

It only costs $7,495.00 from amazon It should come with a 1ds mk2 included in the package.

[mbze430]

nobody said high end lens comes cheap :P

[YunusEmre]

Sure, but I'd not compare the 16-35 to Lecia 15mm f/2.8. One costs $1400 the other $7400. One is a prime, the other is a zoom lens.

[mbze430]

Originally Posted by Tom W

Actually, the 16-35 isn't the best lens in my bag, but it's the best ultra-wide lens I have owned (except for the fisheye). I've tried 3 different 20 mm primes and the 17-40 and my 16-35 is the best of them. It's a keeper...

As quoted...please refer back to this statement for my post on the Leica.

[hemuni]

...and for 7½k they couldn't build in AF??
Sure seems nice though, especially the kit suggested by yunus

[Tom W]

Originally Posted by mbze430

There is THIS one lens....

Leica

I want it, but not enough to spend that much $$.

[Smoketree]

Here is a cropped sample. 1/100, F5, 29mm

[roli_bark]

Originally Posted by mbze430

As quoted...please refer back to this statement for my post on the Leica.

Exactly. Apples to apples - it's the best wide-angle ZOOM Canon can offer.
However, one can't even start comparing it on an equal-focal-length basis to any other lens. It is worse.

See this:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-..._id=00G90q&tag=

[Double Negative]

Originally Posted by roli_bark

See this:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-..._id=00G90q&tag=

Makes perfect sense... Ultra wide angles are harder to make well than a standard or even a regular wide angle lens - let alone a zoom and at a bright aperture.

All things considered, I wouldn't trade my 16-35mm for anything. Maybe some fast primes, but they each have their uses. In any event, it doesn't change my opinion of the 16-35mm one bit. I like it.

[roli_bark]

Originally Posted by Double Negative

All things considered, I wouldn't trade my 16-35mm for anything. Maybe some fast primes, but they each have their uses. In any event, it doesn't change my opinion of the 16-35mm one bit. I like it.

Me too...
With this lens - I don't look for ultra resolute images at crop 100%.
There are other features to the 16-35 : View Angle, Versatility, Light Weight, Contrast, Colors, and a moderate CA for its class.