Canon 16-35II usm

Has anyone had any issues with this lens or any photos you can post, i am thinking of using it on my 40d

Thanks

You can find some pictures here - https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=411156

I don't think there's any common issues with this lens. There's a lot of people own it and love it.

I've got it. I think it's very underutilized on a crop body.

Do you need F2.8? If not, 17-40 maybe a better alternate from a cost benefit standpoint.
10-22 is a great lens, as are some non Canon lenses.

It is not the best choice for a crop. take a look at the 17-55is instead. you get IS, better range, excellent sharpness and cheaper lens. the 16-35 only has the advantage of being full frame... if you update in the very near future.

juanpafer wrote in post #13042502
It is not the best choice for a crop. take a look at the 17-55is instead. you get IS, better range, excellent sharpness and cheaper lens. the 16-35 only has the advantage of being full frame... if you update in the very near future.

I agree, look for the 10-22 for your 40d. If you think you might go full frame in the future go with the 17-40.

I love my 16-35 II but agree with the advice here. It's an expensive option for a crop. If you like the focal range, the 17-55 or 17-50s are cheaper and will likely produce equal or better IQ. If you are looking for an ultrawide, the canon 10-22, tonkia 11-16, etc. are better alternatives.

So the question is:
Do you want an ultrawide (16-35 on full frame, 10-22 on crop) or a wide to normal (24-70 on ff, 17-55 on crop)?
It is not clear and you might get confusing replies.

juanpafer wrote in post #13042502
It is not the best choice for a crop. take a look at the 17-55is instead. you get IS, better range, excellent sharpness and cheaper lens. the 16-35 only has the advantage of being full frame... if you update in the very near future.

Yeah, that's a lot of money to drop on a lens seeing action only on a crop body.

For the price of a new 16-35 f2.8 II you can get Sigma 10-20 + 24-70L
which is far more versatile on a crop body

thanks for all the replays i have used sigma before, but that was when they first came on the market it was a 70 - 300 i had,
have used the 17-40 on a photo soot and was imprest with the quality of the lens,
and a 24 - 105l and was imprest with this lens and have since got one,

and will be going ff just wighting to see what canon going to larnch and read the revews

just a quick update i got the 16-35 and its a cracking lens worth paying out all the cash for it

I'm so gonna get this lense. Its definitely on my next shopping list.

My 16-35 stays on my crop-body when I anticipate indoor group shots. The 24-70 goes on for general walkaround stuff. No problems with either for me.

I love it and use it a lot both on &d and FF. Sold the 17-55 2.8 (which I loved) to fund it when I went FF.

just 2 photos from yesterday playing around with this lens hope you like them

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

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