Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 09 Aug 2011 (Tuesday) 00:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Any 7D owners with 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM?

 
Weasel_Loader
Member
Avatar
112 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 21
Joined May 2011
Location: Southern California High Desert
     
Aug 09, 2011 00:53 |  #1

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.

My questions-

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. ;)


http://www.weaselloade​rphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
lpphreak06
Member
Avatar
198 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA
     
Aug 09, 2011 01:05 |  #2

What is lens creep? I'm looking to get a nice wide angle for my 7d as well.


Canon 7d | Canon 5d MK II | 50mm f1.8(DIAF) | Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.4 | 135mm ƒ2.0 | 50mm ƒ 1.2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Weasel_Loader
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
112 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 21
Joined May 2011
Location: Southern California High Desert
     
Aug 09, 2011 01:11 |  #3

While the lens is pointed down, the lens zooms out from the weight of the glass. I believe more expensive lenses do not have this problem.


http://www.weaselloade​rphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
XJC11
Mostly Lurking
12 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Aug 09, 2011 01:21 |  #4

lpphreak06 wrote in post #12901936 (external link)
What is lens creep? I'm looking to get a nice wide angle for my 7d as well.

+1:cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cassidyphuey
Senior Member
379 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Aug 09, 2011 01:43 |  #5

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NotASpeckOfCereal
Senior Member
Avatar
294 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Staly Vegas, UK
     
Aug 09, 2011 01:44 |  #6

Weasel_Loader wrote in post #12901888 (external link)
My questions-

Does the 16-35mm have lens creep like the cheap kit lenses? Really love my kit lens, but this factor drives me nuts.

Nope.

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. ;)

Take a look through the 16-35 shots in the lens samples photo archive


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NotASpeckOfCereal
Senior Member
Avatar
294 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Staly Vegas, UK
     
Aug 09, 2011 01:45 |  #7

cassidyphuey wrote in post #12902073 (external link)
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.

Have you seen some of the portraits done with the Tokina 11-16?


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cassidyphuey
Senior Member
379 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Aug 09, 2011 01:46 |  #8

NotASpeckOfCereal wrote in post #12902080 (external link)
Have you seen some of the portraits done with the Tokina 11-16?

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...:rolleyes:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,606 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Aug 09, 2011 01:59 |  #9

Weasel_Loader wrote in post #12901888 (external link)
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.

My questions-

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 (external link)
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 (external link)
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...:rolleyes:

A wide angle will give provide distortion. What you do with it is another story.


SOSKIphoto (external link) | Blog (external link) | Facebook (external link)| Instagram (external link)
Shooting with big noisy cameras and a bag of primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nikesupremedunk
Goldmember
Avatar
1,131 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: ny
     
Aug 09, 2011 02:53 |  #10

this is an EXPENSIVE option especially to be used only on a crop body. are you looking to upgrade to FF or add one in the future? if not, i would MUCH rather go with a 17-5x f/2.8 variant. even the best canon's 17-55 is MUCH cheaper, has IS, and has more reach.

these lenses were meant to be a UWA on a ff. while you can use them as a "short-normal zoom" on a crop, there are better options especially if you aren't sharing them with a FF.


| Andrew | 5D Mark II | EOS-M | Canon 17-40mm f 4 L | Canon 35mm f 1.4 L | Canon 100mm f 2.8 L Macro | Canon 70-200mm f 4 L IS | Canon EF-M 22mm f 2.0 | Speedlite 430EX II|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coco0045
Hatchling
5 posts
Joined Jul 2011
     
Aug 09, 2011 03:19 |  #11

Not to highjack the thread but I also was thinking about the 16-35mm f/2.8L but given the suggestions above for the 17-55 and the 17-40 I'm changing my mind now. I see that the 17-55 offer IS and the 17-40 doesn't, would I see a difference in shake? I mostly take scene/landscape shots on my 7D and rarely like to use tripod especially traveling overseas.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kimchibrown
Member
Avatar
89 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Seoul, Korea
     
Aug 09, 2011 05:21 |  #12

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #12902210 (external link)
this is an EXPENSIVE option especially to be used only on a crop body. are you looking to upgrade to FF or add one in the future? if not, i would MUCH rather go with a 17-5x f/2.8 variant. even the best canon's 17-55 is MUCH cheaper, has IS, and has more reach.

these lenses were meant to be a UWA on a ff. while you can use them as a "short-normal zoom" on a crop, there are better options especially if you aren't sharing them with a FF.

This is called sanity in a post. Forget the Canon 16-35mm. You could get a Tokina 12-24mm and a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. You may be even able to get the Canon 10-20mm instead of the Tokina, if you're afraid of 3rd party lenses.

A lot of people are seduced by that red ring but forget that the glass inside the lens is important, too. Not saying the OP is one of those people, just a general observation on these forums.

coco0045 wrote in post #12902262 (external link)
Not to highjack the thread but I also was thinking about the 16-35mm f/2.8L but given the suggestions above for the 17-55 and the 17-40 I'm changing my mind now. I see that the 17-55 offer IS and the 17-40 doesn't, would I see a difference in shake? I mostly take scene/landscape shots on my 7D and rarely like to use tripod especially traveling overseas.

Then get a Tokina 11-16mm or 12-24mm. The 12-24mm is a much cheaper option and is probably better for landscapes (I say probably because great landscape photos can come from any lens, really. It's just that ultra wide lenses are known as "landscape" lenses, whether factual or not.)

Also, if you don't use a tripod, the Tokina 11-16 is f/2.8, so that extra stop may help instead of the 17-40mm f/4.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hania
Senior Member
919 posts
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Staffordshire, UK
     
Aug 09, 2011 12:26 as a reply to  @ kimchibrown's post |  #13

I have a 16-35 but also have a 5d2 and find that when travelling swapping between the 7D and 5D2 with the 16-35 and a 28-300 gives me a brilliant range.

Last time I took the 7D, 5D2 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200 but found too much overlap and too heavy and often I couldn't be bothered to swap lenses.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OneJZsupra
Goldmember
Avatar
2,378 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Guam
     
Aug 09, 2011 12:47 |  #14

I have the 16-35 paired with my 7D but I plan on adding a FF body in the future.


Gear List | Feed Back | My Site (external link)
YN RF-603 O-ring solution


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Weasel_Loader
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
112 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 21
Joined May 2011
Location: Southern California High Desert
     
Aug 09, 2011 17:54 as a reply to  @ OneJZsupra's post |  #15

Thanks for all the advice folks. I really do need to evaluate my true needs and what I'd like to accomplish. I'm going to find a way to keep the 50mm f/1.2L and most likely dump my kit lens and go with a 17-55mm or 16-35mm. Also going to read more about Tokina and Sigma lenses. They seem like great value and have the range I'm looking for. ;)

BTW, only reason I seem to be stuck on L lenses is that I know eventually I'll get a FF and I'm just addicted to the build quality. Also can't stand to feel plastic on a lens that retails for more than a few hundred dollars. :rolleyes:


http://www.weaselloade​rphoto.com (external link)

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

10,221 views & 0 likes for this thread
Any 7D owners with 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dsk26894
793 guests, 357 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.