Canon 16-35 2.8 L Mk I--does this sound like a good deal?

So, I am not really familiar with the MK I version of this lens, but I found one in excellent condition (no marks or dust) for $600. Seeing as how I have been looking for my first L lens, and I have been wanting something in the wider end of the spectrum, shouldn't I snap this up? Also, the 2.8 interests me for portrait purposes (my primary interest) more than some of the F4 L zooms.

Sounds like a deal!

Considering the 17-40 F4 and 24-105 F4 are usually found for a little more.

I'd jump on it!!

That's what I thought, so I just sent the "I'll take it." I feel like I have gotten to the point where I have outgrown my current lens lineup; I am just not in love with the 28-105, and the nifty fifty is what it is (including sloooooow focus, which is a problem with kid portraits). I do love the 85 1.8, it is my most used lens.

So I am going to grab this 16-35; I am also going to replace the nifty fifty with a 50 1.4. So, keeping in mind that my primary interest is portraits, the new lineup will be:

16-35 2.8 L.....50 1.4.....85 1.8

I'm pretty excited about that lineup.

$600 is a good price. I got mine for $600 and it was heavily used with heavy wear on it with a few dents on the filter ring and dust inside.

Do you hear a "HELL YEAH!!?"

Picked it up today...it's in perfect shape. For the price I was worried there was going to be some undisclosed flaw, but I think this was a steal of a deal.

The only problem with the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L is that the Canon 17-40mm f/4.0 has a better IQ across the board from f/4 to f/11. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Saint728 wrote in post #14932657
The only problem with the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L is that the Canon 17-40mm f/4.0 has a better IQ across the board from f/4 to f/11. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Check this review comparing the 16-35L vs 17-40L. They're both very very similar. For $600 I rather choose F/2.8 over F/4.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

kay188 wrote in post #14932666
Check this review comparing the 16-35L vs 17-40L. They're both very very similar. For $600 I rather choose F/2.8 over F/4.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

I guess you didn't read the article? It states that the 17-40 has a better IQ and is less resistant to lens flair the the 16-35.

This can clearly be seen in the 100% crops immediately above. The 17-40mm displays higher resolving power. Notice how the lower-left wire that is clearly visible in the 17-40 frame at left is almost invisible in the 16-35mm frame at right. It is masked by flare and reduced contrast. The extent to which the 17-40mm lens is "sharper" can also be easily seen.

This street lamp is from the same frame above, taken at f/4, from the extreme lower right hand corner of the frame. What's true at the center holds up (or doesn't) at the corners. At f/4 the 17-40mm is sharper, has less flare and higher contrast.

The new 17-40mm f/4L is a welcome surprise though. At nearly half the price of the faster and slightly wider 16-35mm f/2.8L it provides excellent image quality, surpassing that of the more expensive lens in several areas.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

I'm jealous, I want a 16-35mm for $600!

plawren53202 wrote in post #14927715
So, I am not really familiar with the MK I version of this lens, but I found one in excellent condition (no marks or dust) for $600. Seeing as how I have been looking for my first L lens, and I have been wanting something in the wider end of the spectrum, shouldn't I snap this up? Also, the 2.8 interests me for portrait purposes (my primary interest) more than some of the F4 L zooms.

You might not like it very much for portrait work, but for $600 you can always sell it and make some $$. Like others have mentioned, something like the 17-40mm has a distinct advantage in most scenarios, especially in the corners. Keep this in mind when shooting people since you can easily end up with a perfectly sharp torso, but soft as hell face....

Saint728 wrote in post #14932697
I guess you didn't read the article? It states that the 17-40 has a better IQ and is less resistant to lens flair the the 16-35.

This can clearly be seen in the 100% crops immediately above. The 17-40mm displays higher resolving power. Notice how the lower-left wire that is clearly visible in the 17-40 frame at left is almost invisible in the 16-35mm frame at right. It is masked by flare and reduced contrast. The extent to which the 17-40mm lens is "sharper" can also be easily seen.

This street lamp is from the same frame above, taken at f/4, from the extreme lower right hand corner of the frame. What's true at the center holds up (or doesn't) at the corners. At f/4 the 17-40mm is sharper, has less flare and higher contrast.

The new 17-40mm f/4L is a welcome surprise though. At nearly half the price of the faster and slightly wider 16-35mm f/2.8L it provides excellent image quality, surpassing that of the more expensive lens in several areas.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Hey Patrick,

Lighten up. The OP isn't asking about what's better lens. And to be perfectly honest, you're splitting hairs.

Life's too short. Let the OP enjoy his new (to him) lens.

Ian

Btw OP, I have the 16-35 and I don't use it for portraits. Environmental portraits, yes, but portraits no. You'll love it for things like, sports (lightning fast AF), landscape, etc. I use it a lot for photojournalism. Great lens, imo, and if it doesn't suit you you can sell it for a profit.

Enjoy .

I don't use my 16-35 for portraits either.

BTW I would not trade my 16-35 for a 17-40. That would be a downgrade.