Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

For me it is like:

- Landscapes:
Ultra wide Angle = 70-90%
Wide Angle [not ultra] = 20-30%
Normal to long = 10%

- Walkaround/portraits in street or public:
Ultra wide Angle = 20-30%
Wide Angle [not ultra] = 30-40%
Normal to long = 60-90%

I can't live without ultra wide angle and standard/long lenses, so 16-35 or now it is 15-30 and 24-70 will be my top best zoom lenses then followed by 70-200, prime is another story.

Tareq wrote in post #18092811
For me it is like:

- Landscapes:
Ultra wide Angle = 70-90%
Wide Angle [not ultra] = 20-30%
Normal to long = 10%

- Walkaround/portraits in street or public:
Ultra wide Angle = 20-30%
Wide Angle [not ultra] = 30-40%
Normal to long = 60-90%

I can't live without ultra wide angle and standard/long lenses, so 16-35 or now it is 15-30 and 24-70 will be my top best zoom lenses then followed by 70-200, prime is another story.

I must be weird. 50% of my landscapes that sell really well are taken with a 100-400 and I about 10% with my 16-35. Most of the rest are my 24-70 F4 or my 50mm 1.4. I just had to look in lightroom for percentages from my selling photos folder.

MysticFalcon wrote in post #18092837
I must be weird. 50% of my landscapes that sell really well are taken with a 100-400 and I about 10% with my 16-35. Most of the rest are my 24-70 F4 or my 50mm 1.4. I just had to look in lightroom for percentages from my selling photos folder.

That is you, i use my 24-105 more than my 16-35 before, but in general the most landscape shots i saw here and there or on 500px and flickr are like from ultra wide angle lenses, so don't put it as with your 100-400 to be most used so it is the popular around the world for landscapes, i may take wild life shots with 24-105 or ultra wide but this will not put it as top choice for wild life then.

In all cases, any lens that works for us we put it with high percent, i use 17/24 TS lenses as my most used for landscapes nowadays even i have 15-30 and 24-105/24-70, and i also have 100-400 but didn't use it for any landscape shots yet, and i won a lot of my landscapes from ultra wide angle lens results.

Almost zero PP, this is straight from RAW. This lens produces amazing colours and detail even on my old 7D.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KY5X​Ek

dochollidayda wrote in post #18092767
I still think that 16-35 paired with a fast prime in walk around range is a better combo than a slower 24-70 lens. I know the 24-70/2.8 variant is considered perhaps the bread and butter of any serious photographer working in controlled situations.

My problems with the 24-70 F4 are as following,
1. Its wide but not enough for those spectacular wide corners.
2. 70mm is not really a zoom on full frame and if need be is usually covered by superb companions in 70-200 options.
3. Its too slow to be used indoors in museums, restaurants etc.

It can do a bunch of things but other lenses can do them better. Nothing can replace an UW but an UW and nothing can do what 70-200 does on a full frame especially when it comes to portraits, landscape and sometimes even wildlife. I know its a stretch but I have often done that on my cropper.

Thats just my opinion and is what I have gathered in my few years of really amateurish shooting. Some might agree and some might not, really have to decide what's better suited for your style of shooting.

I agree that an UWA+fast prime is a better combo than 24-70, and even better if you have a 70-200. And that's what I did. Today I got myself an used cheap 17-40 f4L. I know 16-35 f4L IS is a better lens, but I can't afford it. I don't want to spend a lot of money for an UWA.

I think that 5D + 17-40 + 50 1.4 + 70-200 is a good and a light combo. I am done for now, but in the future, I'd like to cover that 40-70 range with L quality.

canon-alb wrote in post #18093633
I agree that an UWA+fast prime is a better combo than 24-70, and even better if you have a 70-200. And that's what I did. Today I got myself an used cheap 17-40 f4L. I know 16-35 f4L IS is a better lens, but I can't afford it. I don't want to spend a lot of money for an UWA.

I think that 5D + 17-40 + 50 1.4 + 70-200 is a good and a light combo. I am done for now, but in the future, I'd like to cover that 40-70 range with L quality.

17-40 is an awesome lens and shines way more on full frame.
I am sure you will enjoy this combo for landscape. I don't have personal experience with it so I can't comment on that but for years landscape shooters have considered to be the best buy in Canon's arsenal.
Would love to see your pics with your new purchase.

My refurb from the Canon Store 10% off sale came in today. Looking forward to shooting some with it this weekend.

pwomble wrote in post #18094024
My refurb from the Canon Store 10% off sale came in today. Looking forward to shooting some with it this weekend.

I saw that deal on canonrumors.com. Look forward to seeing your images. Good luck.

An image from a visit to a private automobile collection ... with my 5D3 and 16-35mm f/4, taken at f/8, 1.3 sec, 100 ISO, at 27mm.

I've had my 16-35mm f/4 for about a month, and it replaced my 17-40mm f/4.

Maxdave

These two are from the same shoot, but are both Focus Stacks (first time I tried the technique) ... both with my 5D3 and 16-35mm f/4 ...

The first f/10, 4 sec, ISO 100, 27mm; second f/14, 4 sec, ISO 100, both from a series of 4 images.

Maxdave