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 01 Jun 2013 (Saturday) 09:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L II

 
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jun 02, 2013 18:39 |  #16

Mr.Noisy wrote in post #15992765 (external link)
....16-35, its sharp from wide open, only downside, I left the receipt out and the wife saw it ;)

It couldn't of been too bad of an experience, you are still referring to her as the wife.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mr.Noisy
Senior Member
Avatar
288 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 42
Joined Aug 2012
Location: UK™
     
Jun 02, 2013 19:03 |  #17

jimewall wrote in post #15992879 (external link)
It couldn't of been too bad of an experience, you are still referring to her as the wife.

ha ha yeah, she is good as gold, it's just the initial shock when she finds out the prices, she soon gets over it........for now


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LowriderS10
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,170 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2008
Location: South Korea / Canada
     
Jun 02, 2013 21:25 |  #18

The Tokina is a great lens...people on here just like to blindly hate on Ken Rockwell, because he's making a living off of talking about lenses, whereas the rest of the people on here just wish they could do that.

The Tokina is indeed weathersealed and it is of ridiculously great optical quality (it bests the 16-35L II in most tests)...if it took filters I'd have sold my 16-35L II a long time ago and gone with the Tokina.

However, I love using filters (specifically my vari ND), so I stick with the 16-35L II, which is an excellent lens as well.


-=Prints For Sale at PIXELS=- (external link)
-=Facebook=- (external link)
-=Flickr=- (external link)

-=Gear=-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,191 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 482
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jun 02, 2013 22:03 |  #19

LowriderS10 wrote in post #15993343 (external link)
The Tokina is a great lens...people on here just like to blindly hate on Ken Rockwell, because he's making a living off of talking about lenses, whereas the rest of the people on here just wish they could do that.

The Tokina is indeed weathersealed and it is of ridiculously great optical quality (it bests the 16-35L II in most tests)...if it took filters I'd have sold my 16-35L II a long time ago and gone with the Tokina.

However, I love using filters (specifically my vari ND), so I stick with the 16-35L II, which is an excellent lens as well.

Rockwell is a paid shill. I don't think everything he says is nonsense but when when it comes to objective reviews i'd look elsewhere.

I know the tokina is good lens. good for whom is the question? not you. not me. and I doubt Rockwell owns the lens. it's big, heavy, has a bulbous front element and a stunted range. and I know without looking it isn't as flare or PF resistant as the canon nor does it focus as quickly.

if your goal is to save money you can always find a way to do it and usually also get excellent IQ -- e.g. tamron 28-75 -- but there will be other compromises.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
14,944 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 1254
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Jun 02, 2013 22:04 |  #20

The 16-35 F2.8II rocks.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,191 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 482
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jun 02, 2013 22:14 |  #21

windpig wrote in post #15993455 (external link)
The 16-35 F2.8II rocks.

"I compared this Tokina directly against the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II (external link). They are about the same; which is better varies as you change focal length, aperture and where you look in the field.

Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8 L II (external link) is a much lighter lens with a broader zoom range in a smaller package that also takes filters.
As a Canon shooter, size, weight and the ability to use filters are very important to me, so I'd pass on this Tokina and save for the Canon 16-35mm II. It is always a good idea to spend what you want on lenses (external link), since they will serve you for years to come."

-- Ken Rockwell


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
14,944 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 1254
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Jun 02, 2013 22:20 |  #22

It Rocks, not Rockswell:p


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,191 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 482
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jun 02, 2013 22:30 as a reply to  @ windpig's post |  #23

holy mackerel the tokina weighs 42 gms more than the brick. It's a freakin' monster! almost 300 gms more than the 16-35L II!!


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,486 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Jun 03, 2013 01:11 as a reply to  @ ed rader's post |  #24

We all know quality weighs, look at the 85 1.2 :-) but it's a tripod lens so no worries
When I need filters I use them on my 24-70 2.8, ND big stopper,...


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tomohdi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
18 posts
Joined Sep 2011
     
Jun 03, 2013 06:21 |  #25

Mr.Noisy wrote in post #15992765 (external link)
I have the 16-35 II that I use for landscape and urbex, it is expensive, unless you need f2.8 then buy the 17-40, it's just as good for landscapes, plus its a 77mm filter thread which can be more user friendly than the 16-35's 82mm, I used to have a 17-40 an I was happy with the way it performed, but needed f2.8 so I sold it and got the 16-35, if your using filters that rules out the tokina 16-28, but I couldnt be happier with the image quality of my 16-35, its sharp from wide open, only downside, I left the receipt out and the wife saw it ;)

thanks, i think in sometime i need f2.8 because i don't have any f2.8 lens. i have to buy 16-35 when my wife is not in town.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Jun 03, 2013 07:36 |  #26

16-35mm didn't impress enough to justify its larger size, bulk and cost over the 17-40mm. Which is similarly sharp (ie, not so sharp) and has much less flare.
Canon doesn't see, to be that great at wide angles and you can find much better 3rd part options like the 16-28mm Tokina or the amazing 15mm Zeiss. Unfortunately none of the good ones take filters.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nburwell
Goldmember
Avatar
1,264 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
     
Jun 03, 2013 11:36 |  #27

tomohdi wrote in post #15988712 (external link)
I'm wondering if my 24-105 on 5D mark III is wide enough for landscape shooting will be good or i have to spend money for getting a new lens such as 16-35mm f2.8 II.if it be okay if prefer to buy 70-200 is II please advise.

The only way to test this is to go out in the field, and if you feel restricted at 24mm, then you should probably invest in a UWA lens. Personally, I love my 16-35mm II lens since not only do I use it for cityscapes and landscapes, but I use it for astrophotography as well. I would even go so far to say that it's probably my most used lens in my bag.

-Nick




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,191 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 482
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jun 03, 2013 11:40 |  #28

Mornnb wrote in post #15994354 (external link)
16-35mm didn't impress enough to justify its larger size, bulk and cost over the 17-40mm. Which is similarly sharp (ie, not so sharp) and has much less flare.
Canon doesn't see, to be that great at wide angles and you can find much better 3rd part options like the 16-28mm Tokina or the amazing 15mm Zeiss. Unfortunately none of the good ones take filters.

where are you getting your misinformation?


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hania
Senior Member
919 posts
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Staffordshire, UK
     
Jun 03, 2013 15:57 |  #29

Digitally_Altered wrote in post #15992862 (external link)
only downside, I left the receipt out and the wife saw it ;)

:lol:

Don't think my husband ever saw my receipt - think husbands less suspicious than wives ...... love the lens.

For a days shooting at " Tough Guy" UK, I took the 16-35 + 5d2 and 28-300 + 7D

This covered all range without changing lenses (Tough Guy very muddy and wet day!! - "world's toughest assault course).

Great fun


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Jun 03, 2013 16:44 |  #30

ed rader wrote in post #15995052 (external link)
where are you getting your misinformation?

It's well known the 17-40mm has less flare. Take a look at this example. http://www.canonrumors​.com …ic=3510.msg8560​1#msg85601 (external link)


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

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

4,191 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L II
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 htam
1281 guests, 243 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.