16-35 mkI for wedding work.

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,

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.

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

mk II is also painfully soft at the corners.

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.

MR. Cheap here

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.

nicksan wrote in post #13164718
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.

umphotography wrote in post #13164789
MR. Cheap here

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.

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.

picturecrazy wrote in post #13165397
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

umphotography wrote in post #13165677
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.

umphotography wrote in post #13165677
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.

jcolman wrote in post #13167768
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....

jcolman wrote in post #13167768
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.

umphotography wrote in post #13167842
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.