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 Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 25 Sep 2011 (Sunday) 22:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35 mkI for wedding work.

 
snakeman55
Goldmember
Avatar
1,223 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Baltimore, Md
     
Sep 25, 2011 22:54 |  #1

Sorry for another similar post. I did just buy a 24L mkI for those interested...

Anyway, I'm (yet again) re-ranging my gear. Any reason why I shouldn't get the 16-35 mk I? I have a line on one for a good price and I'd like to grab it.

Thanks as usual,


-Adam
Wedding Photographers in Maryland (external link)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 689
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Sep 26, 2011 06:13 |  #2

it's a great lens... Why not? I really don't find ultra wide lenses need critical specifications. The improvements of the mk2 were mostly beneficial to landscape shooting rather than wedding work... like edge and corner sharpness and light falloff. Over the years I've even found that even speed is of little concern if you are willing to use flash. I shoot my UWA at f/5.6 even at night because you can handhold uwa lenses at insanely slow shutter speeds.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcolman
Goldmember
2,643 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 501
Joined Mar 2008
Location: North Carolina
     
Sep 26, 2011 07:26 |  #3

If you don't mind edge softness the mk I is a good lens.


www.jimcolmanphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
form
"inadequately equipped"
Avatar
4,929 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Henderson, NV
     
Sep 26, 2011 09:17 |  #4

mk II is also painfully soft at the corners.


Las Vegas Wedding Photographer: http://www.joeyallenph​oto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 47
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Sep 26, 2011 09:19 |  #5

I don't know about painfully soft.
For wedding work, I wouldn't hesitate getting either of the 16-35's.
I use my MKII all the time.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,932 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2790
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Sep 26, 2011 09:34 as a reply to  @ nicksan's post |  #6

MR. Cheap here:lol:

I didnt want to pay the price for a 16-35. Found a 17-35 new condition and i got it for $650.00. If you can get one for a good price, go for it. You know my feelings on the zooms. I would love to get a 16-35 Version11 but dont want to spend the $$$ at this point. To me, Again, Mr. cheap, I dont think the clients could tell any difference in the corner softness of the 16-35 version 1. I think canon is like any other company, trying to figure out ways to make the company $$$ with these updates on the lens. Like i indicated, i cant imagine a client would be able to find any difference b/t the 2 lens.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcolman
Goldmember
2,643 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 501
Joined Mar 2008
Location: North Carolina
     
Sep 26, 2011 10:50 |  #7

nicksan wrote in post #13164718 (external link)
I don't know about painfully soft.
For wedding work, I wouldn't hesitate getting either of the 16-35's.
I use my MKII all the time.

Ditto. The mk II is an improvement over the mk I in edge sharpness.


www.jimcolmanphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 689
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Sep 26, 2011 11:22 |  #8

umphotography wrote in post #13164789 (external link)
MR. Cheap here:lol:

I didnt want to pay the price for a 16-35. Found a 17-35 new condition and i got it for $650.00. If you can get one for a good price, go for it. You know my feelings on the zooms. I would love to get a 16-35 Version11 but dont want to spend the $$$ at this point. To me, Again, Mr. cheap, I dont think the clients could tell any difference in the corner softness of the 16-35 version 1. I think canon is like any other company, trying to figure out ways to make the company $$$ with these updates on the lens. Like i indicated, i cant imagine a client would be able to find any difference b/t the 2 lens.

Bingo. The way I look at gear purchases is: am I going to get any more business or sales if I get the 16-35 II over the mk1, 17-35 or 17-40? To me, the answer is no. Maybe it's a yes for you, but it wasn't for me.

I actually use my modified 10-22 as a full frame ultrawide instead. Soft in corners? Yes. Light falloff? Yes. Slower lens? Yes.

BUT...
Acts as an UWA on 1.6 AND FF? Yes. (So I don't need to buy and carry another lens)
Still produces my highest number of enlargement and canvas orders over any other lens? Yes.

So I really see no point in getting the "better" lenses.

Having said that, I HAVE owned many of the ultrawides, but really didn't find one to be much better than the others for wedding work.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 689
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Sep 26, 2011 11:50 |  #9

And oh yeah, one turnoff for me was the 82mm filter size for the mk2. I use ND filters so it would be a total PITA to buy a whole new set of 82mm filters just for one stupid lens.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,932 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2790
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Sep 26, 2011 13:02 |  #10

picturecrazy wrote in post #13165397 (external link)
And oh yeah, one turnoff for me was the 82mm filter size for the mk2. I use ND filters so it would be a total PITA to buy a whole new set of 82mm filters just for one stupid lens.

Exactly. Your up the creek with ND filters. Right now i have a set that fits all my L glass. That 17-35 we have does a great job. If you can find a clean one, grab it. But if you have a great price on a 16-35 version1, get it. Your client will never be able to tell. I understandf that as photographers we want the best equipment we can get. But, how good does it have to really be.

Ive talked to several who say the new 70-200 F/2.8is11 is a killer lens. Some have sold thier 135's to get it. BUt its still F/2.8 and you loose F/2.0. How much sharper does it need to be than what the version 1's do. I think where the real problem will be is with the MP count on the sensors and what the new sensors will need. I know my 7D needed good glass for best results. They get these MP counts up to 28mps. you might need version11 glass for best results.

Lloyd didnt you say you had to take a plastic ring off that 10-22 to get it to work and that you had to stop at 12MM. I dont want to buy the sigma 12-24. Everyone i talk to tell me its a poor lens unless stopped down to f/8. I want to get an ultra wide for full frame and cant find a good solution:o


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Red ­ Tie ­ Photography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,575 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: San Diego
     
Sep 26, 2011 18:32 |  #11

umphotography wrote in post #13165677 (external link)
Exactly. Your up the creek with ND filters. Right now i have a set that fits all my L glass. That 17-35 we have does a great job. If you can find a clean one, grab it. But if you have a great price on a 16-35 version1, get it. Your client will never be able to tell. I understandf that as photographers we want the best equipment we can get. But, how good does it have to really be.

Ive talked to several who say the new 70-200 F/2.8is11 is a killer lens. Some have sold thier 135's to get it. BUt its still F/2.8 and you loose F/2.0. How much sharper does it need to be than what the version 1's do. I think where the real problem will be is with the MP count on the sensors and what the new sensors will need. I know my 7D needed good glass for best results. They get these MP counts up to 28mps. you might need version11 glass for best results.

Lloyd didnt you say you had to take a plastic ring off that 10-22 to get it to work and that you had to stop at 12MM. I dont want to buy the sigma 12-24. Everyone i talk to tell me its a poor lens unless stopped down to f/8. I want to get an ultra wide for full frame and cant find a good solution:o

My tokina 11-16mm works on my 5d2, no changes needed. I just need to stay at 16mm for it to work without bad vignetting.


Bryan
Gear List (external link)
San Diego Wedding Photography - Red Tie Photography (external link)
Red Tie Photography Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcolman
Goldmember
2,643 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 501
Joined Mar 2008
Location: North Carolina
     
Sep 26, 2011 20:42 |  #12

umphotography wrote in post #13165677 (external link)
Ive talked to several who say the new 70-200 F/2.8is11 is a killer lens. Some have sold thier 135's to get it. BUt its still F/2.8 and you loose F/2.0. How much sharper does it need to be than what the version 1's do.

The difference between the sharpness of the mk I and mk II versions of the 70-200 is night and day when shooting wide open.


www.jimcolmanphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woolburr
Mr. PMS Himself
Avatar
66,487 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 131
Joined Sep 2005
Location: The Tupperware capitol of eastern Oregon...Leicester, NC!
     
Sep 26, 2011 20:52 |  #13

jcolman wrote in post #13167768 (external link)
The difference between the sharpness of the mk I and mk II versions of the 70-200 is night and day when shooting wide open.

Only if you have nothing better to do than peep pixels....:lol:


People that know me call me Dan
You'll never be a legitimate photographer until you have an award winning duck in your portfolio!
Crayons,Coloring Book, (external link) Refrigerator Art (external link) and What I Really Think About (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,932 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2790
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Sep 26, 2011 20:53 |  #14

jcolman wrote in post #13167768 (external link)
The difference between the sharpness of the mk I and mk II versions of the 70-200 is night and day when shooting wide open.

Ive heard that from a few people. Similar comments with the 16-35 version 1and version 11.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 47
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Sep 26, 2011 23:37 |  #15

umphotography wrote in post #13167842 (external link)
Ive heard that from a few people. Similar comments with the 16-35 version 1and version 11.

The difference between the 70-200 MKI and MKII is definitely greater than the difference between the 16-35 versions.

That said, the 70-200 MKI was a work horse lens before the MKII came out, so it's still a very nice lens.

That said, I LOVE the 70-200 MKII. You don't have to pixel peep in order to see the difference between it and the old one.




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

1,836 views & 0 likes for this thread
16-35 mkI for wedding work.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
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 rsturboguy
811 guests, 324 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.