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 08 Nov 2013 (Friday) 20:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 16-35 II best wide angle lens?

 
328iGuy
Goldmember
Avatar
3,593 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 604
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Ottawa | Ontario
     
Nov 09, 2013 14:22 |  #31

macaron95 wrote in post #16436802 (external link)
my colleague had a 16-35 and i could compare it with my 17-40

he has the benefit of shooting at 16mm vs my 17mm, but his lens distorts buildings much more than mine

and i felt that the difference in price didn't justify the gain of 1mm

so far i'm very happy with my 17-40

Well I would say thats furthest from the truth of difference :).

I too owned both and love my 16-35II, and enjoyed the 17-40L as well, but it doesn't even compare to the same shortness towards centre at all. Big difference.

The biggest thing is the sharpness, next being the 2.8 vs 4 depending on if you need the extra light or not, and then the extra 1mm being minimal to non importance.


Canon 5D IV | Canon 5D III | 16-35L III | 24-70L II | 85L II | 70-200LII | 300 2.8 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,007 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6581
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Nov 09, 2013 15:13 as a reply to  @ 328iGuy's post |  #32

17-40 taken from the 17-40 sample thread

IMAGE: http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Christmas__11.22.12-062_10x20.jpg

Seen others that were not the IQ of this one. Conversely seen others that were just as sharp as this from corner to corner. So is it user error, metering etc, or variation from copy to copy. Same can be said and done with regards to the 16-35 II

My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lehmanncpa
Goldmember
Avatar
1,943 posts
Likes: 33
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Nov 09, 2013 15:21 |  #33

The corner softness issue on my 17-40L was most noticeable between 17-20mm. At 21mm and beyond, it wasn't as noticeable. It was there, but either you had to look for it, or the composition and subject of the photo made it obvious. Most of the time, you just couldn't see it - especially on a 1024px image. I just shot landscapes above 22mm or so and it was just fine.

I'm looking forward to testing my new 16-35II and see if corner sharpness is indeed any better.


Alex
Gear List
Feedback
Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gfspencer
Member
179 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 17
Joined Dec 2008
     
Nov 09, 2013 16:00 |  #34

DonJuanMair wrote in post #16436210 (external link)
Is the 16-35 II the best out there?

Yes.


Canon 50D - Canon 7DII - Canon 6D - 16-35mm f/2.8L - 24-105mm f/4[COLOR="red"]L IS - 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - 50mm f/1.2L - 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS - 100-400mm II f/4.5-5.6L IS - Extender EF 2x

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,132 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 451
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Nov 09, 2013 16:09 |  #35

Bianchi wrote in post #16437767 (external link)
17-40 taken from the 17-40 sample thread

QUOTED IMAGE

Seen others that were not the IQ of this one. Conversely seen others that were just as sharp as this from corner to corner. So is it user error, metering etc, or variation from copy to copy. Same can be said and done with regards to the 16-35 II

that picture was cropped or stitched. I've had my 16-35L II since 2008 and I love it. is it perfect? no. no ultrawide is. it's the only lens I own that I hesitate to use wide open but at f3.2 it's plenty sharp for me.

i'm not trying to suggest that the 17-40L isn't a good lens. I just get tired of hearing that the only difference from the 16-35L II is one stop. it just isn't true. the 17-40L is another lens I don't shoot wide open. I would stop mine down to f4.5 at least. I own very few lenses by design it's just not versatile enough for my needs.


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, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amairphoto
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,892 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 4011
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Las Vegas
     
Nov 09, 2013 18:15 as a reply to  @ ed rader's post |  #36

Bianchi wrote in post #16437767 (external link)
17-40 taken from the 17-40 sample thread

QUOTED IMAGE

Seen others that were not the IQ of this one. Conversely seen others that were just as sharp as this from corner to corner. So is it user error, metering etc, or variation from copy to copy. Same can be said and done with regards to the 16-35 II

id need to see a 100% crop of this on the corners. I agree, it must be stitched.


My Website: http://www.amairphoto.​com (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Nov 09, 2013 18:22 |  #37

Charlie wrote in post #16436858 (external link)
What worries you about the samyang? Being 14 mm, it has the most dof and focus is fairly easy. 14 is much wider than 16 as well, so choose carefully.

Nothing, I said that the cannon 14 is not worth the difference, I don't even mind mf as I already have a few old Pentax and Russian lenses. Just that it looks like that is the answer and it is kinda a shame that canon doesn't offer what Nikon can.


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Nov 09, 2013 18:26 |  #38

ed rader wrote in post #16437430 (external link)
most detractors have never owned the 16-35L II -- they are parroting what they've read -- or are defending their 17-40L. look at the guy's work and come to you own conclusion. also, another excellent photographer our own kevindar has owned all the wide angle lenses discussed including the Nikon and says the 16-35LII is the one he uses the most.


Yup, studied Kevin's stuff here as I am not taking this move/purchase lightly. I am more on the side that it is Internet parrots as you say.

Now that said, the tokina 16-28 seems pretty awesome. I do interior stuff not requiring a filter so I am wondering if $750 For that and $350 for the rokinon is the ticket for quality/smart money wide angle on a canon?


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Nov 09, 2013 22:37 |  #39

There is no Canon wide angle zoom better than the 17-40mm Its some what sharper than the 16-35mm II from f8 and above. Additionally the 17-40mm handles flare and distortion better.
If you want a better wide angle your options for EOS are the 15mm Zeiss, which is the best wide angle anyone makes or the 14mm Canon. Both of these are quite expensive though.


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
jbkalla
Goldmember
Avatar
2,831 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Elizabeth, Colorado, USA
     
Nov 09, 2013 23:33 |  #40

I love my 16-35L. I take landscapes almost exclusively with that lens, but if I had purchased the 17-40L, I'm not sure I would spend the money to upgrade.

Oh, hell.. Who am I kidding? Of course I'd upgrade! Once I got the bug in my behind to get the lens, it would bother me until I did it. Is it rational? Probably not.

The only lens I haven't purchased that I've been wanting for years is the 24-70L. Once the new one came out, the price increase bugged me enough that I'm on the fence about it now. I don't really like lenses that extend like that, either, but I know I really want a mid-zoom like that.


John
flickr (external link) | G+ (external link) | Panoramio (external link) | InterfaceLIFT (external link)
Fujifilm X-T2
| 10-24 f4 R OIS | 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR | XF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR | 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR | 56mm f/1.2 R | 27mm f/2.8 Pancake |  Retina iMac & MBP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,606 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Nov 09, 2013 23:36 |  #41

jbkalla wrote in post #16438657 (external link)
I love my 16-35L. I take landscapes almost exclusively with that lens, but if I had purchased the 17-40L, I'm not sure I would spend the money to upgrade.

Oh, hell.. Who am I kidding? Of course I'd upgrade! Once I got the bug in my behind to get the lens, it would bother me until I did it. Is it rational? Probably not.

The only lens I haven't purchased that I've been wanting for years is the 24-70L. Once the new one came out, the price increase bugged me enough that I'm on the fence about it now. I don't really like lenses that extend like that, either, but I know I really want a mid-zoom like that.

Once you have a second camera body, you won't miss that mid-range zoom. You can easily buy a used 5D2 or new 6D for the price of the 24-70 II.


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
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Nov 09, 2013 23:40 |  #42

jbkalla wrote in post #16438657 (external link)
The only lens I haven't purchased that I've been wanting for years is the 24-70L. Once the new one came out, the price increase bugged me enough that I'm on the fence about it now. I don't really like lenses that extend like that, either, but I know I really want a mid-zoom like that.

Get the 24-70mm. :D. Neither of there lenses is as good as the 24-70mm II. Which I find covers an ideal range for landscapes. And it has fantastic sun star effects with lights. If there is only one lens to have its the 24-70mm Its so versatile.
I use my wide angle far more for architecture, there are few situations where landscape needs more than 24mm.


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
jbkalla
Goldmember
Avatar
2,831 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Elizabeth, Colorado, USA
     
Nov 09, 2013 23:43 |  #43

Staszek wrote in post #16438668 (external link)
Once you have a second camera body, you won't miss that mid-range zoom. You can easily buy a used 5D2 or new 6D for the price of the 24-70 II.

Oh, good point! I never even thought about it that way!

But I mean I'd want the mid-zoom for a walk-around lens when I don't want to carry a lot of gear. I suppose the 40mm STM will probably work just fine for that, though, since I still have my built-in sneaker-zoom. And I can buy a lot of new shoes for the price of the new 24-70L...


John
flickr (external link) | G+ (external link) | Panoramio (external link) | InterfaceLIFT (external link)
Fujifilm X-T2
| 10-24 f4 R OIS | 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR | XF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR | 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR | 56mm f/1.2 R | 27mm f/2.8 Pancake |  Retina iMac & MBP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,606 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Nov 09, 2013 23:51 |  #44

jbkalla wrote in post #16438682 (external link)
Oh, good point! I never even thought about it that way!

But I mean I'd want the mid-zoom for a walk-around lens when I don't want to carry a lot of gear. I suppose the 40mm STM will probably work just fine for that, though, since I still have my built-in sneaker-zoom. And I can buy a lot of new shoes for the price of the new 24-70L...

I use the 35L as my walk around lens. I also have the 24-105 for times when I need wide and short tele and am limited to only one lens, usually outdoor. Primes will change your life though.


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
RayinAlaska
Senior Member
425 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 39
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Alaska's interior
     
Nov 10, 2013 00:48 |  #45

Todd Lambert wrote in post #16436713 (external link)
I've tried most of the wide options for Canon, since I'm primarily a wide shooter.. and I will tell you this, the best ultra wide lens for Canon (and arguable on other platforms as well) is the 17 TS-E.

It's amazingly sharp, extremely versatile and can get wider than just about anything out there if you want to do some shift panos.

My only gripe is the flaring which can be pretty bad in intense lighting.

It seems that the bulbous glass up in front in all ultra-wide lenses such as the 16-35, Nikon 14-24, and the Tokina 16-28 makes for careful planning to avoid flare. Yes, the Nikon version is supposed to be one of the best wide-angle zoom lenses, but according to what I have read in several Nikon user forums, this lens is prone to flare, too. The flare is caused by light entering the lens on the glass curvature eat the edges, just like the other lenses I mentioned above.




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

13,165 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 16-35 II best wide angle lens?
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 dayuan99
1094 guests, 310 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.