Canon 16-35mm f2.8L

Hi all,

At the moment this lens is winning in the race for my next short lens. I couldn't find too many opinions on it, so would like to know some thoughts on itfrom people here. I am considering all short lenses too, but it has to be able to shoot in low light well.

Thanks.

In that focal range, you wont find a better zoom lens. If low light is a real priority you may need a prime though. Canon makes a 24/1.4, 28/1.8 & a 35/1.4 in that range. I've played with the 16-35, but never owned one....its a solid lens (and you dont hear any complaints about them either!)

Here is a great review

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

i guess that depends on who you listen to because i've heard complaints about the 16-35.

if low light is a priority why wouldn't the 17-55 be a better choice?

ed rader

I love my 16-35 although I haven't owned a lot of lenses, this one suits me just fine. I use it for general purpose and pair it with a couple of primes. I don't think you'll find anyone that says it's a bad lense.

This is one of the photo journalist's favourite lens. Many PJ's use it with the 70-200 2.8 as their main workhorse lenses. It is very high on my wish list.

It's a great lens. And if you plan to go to full frame also, it's boasts a really wide 16mm.

Got it today (this is my second one, first one was foolishly sold against Lord_M's advice). It a good lens and worth having it in the arsenal.

Yes the added value of IS and longer reach would be nice, but would need to be weighed against the likelyhood of moving into a FF body in the future. Decisions decisions

I miss my 16-35 already. It went to a good home. I have owned this lens 3 times now. It is a cracker. IMHO, it rocks over the 17-40 and all else.

sugarzebra wrote:
Yes the added value of IS and longer reach would be nice, but would need to be weighed against the likelyhood of moving into a FF body in the future. Decisions decisions

well if FF and low light are a priority that would make the 16-35 the only choice.

and if the OP wants a fast UWA L lens the 16-35 is the only choice.

see, i can make assumptions too .

ed rader

A little off topic here, but isn't it said that the 17-40 is shaprper than the 16-35?

When I finally felt the need for a wide prime zoom, I compared both the 16-35 and the 17-40 against each other. My local shop let me use both lenses and I tested them indoors and out and compared the photos against each other and my needs.

I went with the 17-40 for few reasons: better flare control, more contrast, and better cost for my needs. I bought the lens for landscapes/seascapes not for indoor use, and it just seem better suited for what I needed it for.

The 16-35 f2.8L is a great lens, but that extra speed comes at quite a cost.

Mark

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

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/16-35.shtml


I like mine, but I'm not a huge wide angle user either

Lose one milimeter on wide end, lose some of that heavy duty L build, restrict yourself to 1.6 cameras for now, but you'll gain just about everything else:

* better IQ/sharper.
* higher top end (FL)
* IS
* about $200 saved.

Right, it's the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.