Weasel_Loader wrote in post #12901888
I really love my 50mm f/1.2, but a little more limiting than I thought for my situations at the moment. I find myself utilizing the kit 28-135mm much more often because of the wider angle, but really need a slightly wider lens.
I've lately been thinking about trading the 50mm f/1.2L for a 16-35mm f/2.8 II. I'd rather stick with L series since I know I will be moving to FF within a year or two once I get more experience.
Does the 16-35mm have lens creep like the cheap kit lenses? Really love my kit lens, but this factor drives me nuts.
Anybody have some good portrait shots using the 16-35mm on a crop sensor? Since this lens would replace my 50mm f/1.2L, I'd be using the 16-35mm for indoor candid portraits.
Thanks for any advice offered.
I love my 16-35/7D combo. Its like having the FOV of a 24-70 on FF (well ~25-55).
No lens creep. The zoom is internal and even then, the movement is only a small amount. Its not like the 24-70 or 28-135.
Indoor candid? Probably not so much. Its pretty wide, so if you want to capture tight candids (as I like) you're better off with the 50. Otherwise you'll have to shoot close to your subject and that's not very candid.
My honest suggestion: Sell the 28-135, keep the 50, and buy the 17-55 unless you NEED the build or weather sealing of the L lens. A 16-35 on FF will act completely different than on crop. Chances are the lens you love on crop will not be the lens you like on FF. Buy what you need now and worry about the future when and if it comes.
For my work, I needed the weather sealing and have used it countless times. Otherwise, I would have bought the 17-55 because its every bit as good, if not better.
cassidyphuey wrote in post #12902073
From what I know the 16-35 is mainly used as a landscape lens and with full frame, that's really wide. Too wide to be a portrait lens IMO but hey, you can shoot whatever lens you'd like for portraits. Have you thought about the 24-70? Respectfully it's sharper than the 16-35.
Doubtful on both points. Why would someone spend double the money to shoot landscapes with a infinite depth of field? I believe most landscapers use the 17-40 and spend the saved money on ND filters.
The 16-35 is a popular photojournalist lens. I also find the 16-35 as sharp as the 24-70. The 24-70 might appear sharper due to a greater background blur at 70mm though.
cassidyphuey wrote in post #12902088
Yes I have and they are amazing but even at that wide angle, doesn't it give off distortion? I mean hey, you can crop and such but...
A wide angle will give provide distortion. What you do with it is another story.