If money was no object ..

kin2son wrote in post #15144425
Hey Ed do you think the 16-35LII @ 24mm onwards is good enough for occasional portrait as an alternative to the 24LII?

I want 14-70 + 24LII, but am looking to save a bit and do it all with 16-35II alone...

k -- i'm not familiar with the 24II. i prefer environmental portraits and i think the 16-35L II is excellent for that task. i'll look and see if i have have any examples.

here's one in pretty tough light. iso 800, f3.5, 100s. focus is on the fish

kin2son wrote in post #15144425
Hey Ed do you think the 16-35LII @ 24mm onwards is good enough for occasional portrait as an alternative to the 24LII?

I want 14-70 + 24LII, but am looking to save a bit and do it all with 16-35II alone...

I am not Ed, but based on my own experience, for occasional portraits, yes.

For a lot of use especially under difficult lighting conditions, like low light and mixed light, the 24L II, or even the 24L Mk I (which is a hidden gem).

Kind regards, Wim

alphamalex wrote in post #15144428
+1


Rephrase #2: If I had between $1 and $1350 to spend on a wide lens to use for landscaping on a FF Canon EOS DSLR .....

Landscaping and zoom: 17-40 will suffice, but to get the utmost out of landscaping, use primes like the TS-E 17. IOW, sell your the lenses you wanted to sell and add the $1350 - I think you will have change left for an Extender 1.4 III, which with the TS-E 17L will provide better results at 24 mm than you can get from a 24-70L, 17-40L or 16-35L II at 24 mm. Just that it becomes a 24 F/5.6 lens .

Kind regards, Wim

I would adapt the nikon 14-24

wimg wrote in post #15144452
Landscaping and zoom: 17-40 will suffice, but to get the utmost out of landscaping, use primes like the TS-E 17. IOW, sell your the lenses you wanted to sell and add the $1350 - I think you will have change left for an Extender 1.4 III, which with the TS-E 17L will provide better results at 24 mm than you can get from a 24-70L, 17-40L or 16-35L II at 24 mm. Just that it becomes a 24 F/5.6 lens .

Kind regards, Wim

yeah if you are in the quest for perfection just keep spending! i prefer excellence and versatility. i've heard the 24-70L II is excellent between 24mm and 35mm. i'll see if i can verify that real soon .

Dear God, if you're listening, please have Canon make a TS-E 11-135 F2.8L

ed rader wrote in post #15144462
yeah if you are in the quest for perfection just keep spending! i prefer excellence and versatility. i've heard the 24-70L II is excellent between 24mm and 35mm. i'll see if i can verify that real soon .

Forgot about that one - I haven't seen one in real life yet over here. I wasn't too impressed with the 24-70L Mk I myself, but by that time I was used to a few primes in that range .

I am not worried about versatility - I have always used zooms as varifocal lenses, i.e., zooming for framing purposes only, so primes are fine with me .

Kind regards, Wim

chumlee wrote in post #15144459
I would adapt the nikon 14-24

Lee has a whole separate system dedicated to this lens .. just saw that when researching the Lee System. I'll have to look for sample shots ..

alphamalex wrote in post #15144467
Dear God, if you're listening, please have Canon make a TS-E 11-135 F2.8L

No, please, don't!

I am pretty sure that will spoil the excellent bokeh .

Kind regards, Wim

alphamalex wrote in post #15144479
Lee has a whole separate system dedicated to this lens .. just saw that when researching the Lee System. I'll have to look for sample shots ..

I owned one, adapted for Canon. It is better than the 17-40L or 16-35L II, for sure, but awkward to use, as one has to use it completely in manual mode, and it is especially when trying to set a specific aperture, on Canon that is.

Besides that, the 17 is sharper in the corners, is better at isolating subjects, and has better contrast. Also, it is huge compared to the TS-E 17, and very top heavy.

My conclusion: the TS-E 17 is better .

Kind regards, Wim

ed rader wrote in post #15144432
here's one in pretty tough light. iso 800, f3.5, 100s. focus is on the fish

Thanks for the sample Ed Tbh that's good enough for me.

Think i am set for the 16-35II

OK, I'll ask the obvious. You have a 7D. Have you considered the 10-22? Same range as the 16-35 on FF. Less distortion and sharper across the APS-c frame than the 16-35 is across FF. Also same price as the 17-40, which is half that of the 16-35. What it can never be is f/2.8, if you need that. Just thought I'd ask.

Money was no object for me, so I bought both lenses, the 17-40L and the 16-35L II.

Performance from the 16-35L is no better than the 17-40L and in many cases it was worse on the edges. I honestly wanted to keep the 16-35 just to say I had it, but after looking at countless pictures I had taken with both at 100%, the 17-40 won. I returned the 16-35 and kept the 17-40L.

If I was a wedding photographer and didn't care about mushy edges and needed an extra stop, I might consider the 16-35L.

17-40L

17-40 would be my choice. Good range for a crop