Canon 16-35 II best wide angle lens?

macaron95 wrote in post #16436802
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.

17-40 taken from the 17-40 sample thread

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.

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

Yes.

Bianchi wrote in post #16437767
17-40 taken from the 17-40 sample thread

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.

Bianchi wrote in post #16437767
17-40 taken from the 17-40 sample thread

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.

Charlie wrote in post #16436858
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.

ed rader wrote in post #16437430
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?

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.

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.

jbkalla wrote in post #16438657
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.

jbkalla wrote in post #16438657
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. . 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.

Staszek wrote in post #16438668
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...

jbkalla wrote in post #16438682
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.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #16436713
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.