Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM - Coke Bottle

few more photos , also I like to say what I am very happy with this lens,
I like 17-40 too but shooting hand held with f4 at night wont work.
all shots hand held iso800(expt 1st) ,canon 5D
.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Could anyone post some landscape shots?
That would be great.

woow very vibrant colors.. and sharp like it very much..

Great shots guys.

Quick question: How does this lens comapre to the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ?

aridan wrote in post #4486257
Great shots guys.

Quick question: How does this lens comapre to the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ?

In what way? The 16-35 was designed to give the same Ultra Wide Angle field of view on a full-frame camera that the 10-22 gives to an APS-C camera. On an APS-C camera, the 16-35 isn't nearly as wide.

I think if you have an APS-C camera, you might be better served with the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 10-22, but still the 16-35 is a fine lens on either type of camera!

tonylong wrote in post #4489510
In what way? The 16-35 was designed to give the same Ultra Wide Angle field of view on a full-frame camera that the 10-22 gives to an APS-C camera. On an APS-C camera, the 16-35 isn't nearly as wide.

I think if you have an APS-C camera, you might be better served with the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 10-22, but still the 16-35 is a fine lens on either type of camera!

Thanks Tony

I guess I was referring to the overall IQ as compared between the two. Given the fact that I have a 40D (arriving tonight ), I will certainly be taking the crop factor into account when purchasing my WA lens. Right now I'm starting with a 50mm f1.4 prime (mainly for indoor portraits). My next lens will have to be a walk around lens with a wide enough angle and fast enough aperture for outdoor night shots - most likely the 17-55. Given the fact that a 17-55 cannot be considered an "UWA" on a crop body, I'm also interested in purchasing an UWA - possibly the 10-22. I guess I was just curious to know about the difference in IQ between the latter one and the 16-35, especially since the 16-35 is a faster lens and bears the letter "L"

aridan wrote in post #4489730
Thanks Tony

I guess I was referring to the overall IQ as compared between the two. Given the fact that I have a 40D (arriving tonight ), I will certainly be taking the crop factor into account when purchasing my WA lens. Right now I'm starting with a 50mm f1.4 prime (mainly for indoor portraits). My next lens will have to be a walk around lens with a wide enough angle and fast enough aperture for outdoor night shots - most likely the 17-55. Given the fact that a 17-55 cannot be considered an "UWA" on a crop body, I'm also interested in purchasing an UWA - possibly the 10-22. I guess I was just curious to know about the difference in IQ between the latter one and the 16-35, especially since the 16-35 is a faster lens and bears the letter "L"

I have a 10-22 that I use with my 30D and a 16-35 that I use with my 5D. I haven't done a series of tests and comparisons between the two, though. I can say that I'm happy with the results from both of these lenses.

For the APS-C cameras, my most recommended set of lenses would be:

Definitely the 17-55 2.8 IS -- this is a superb lens, the best of its type, and is worth scraping for or borrowing for. It's ideal as a walk-around lens as well as indoors closer-up photography. The only "lack" is that it is not as long as you might need, but it is sharp, fast, and has IS, and great IQ.

You would eventually want a telephoto lens. The low cost 70-300 IS is fine for general use. The 70-200 series is for if you want to "get serious".

Ultra wide, I'd go for the 10-22 in a hearbeat. It really does a good job.

Then, I'd go for a good prime, depending on your needs. The 85 series is great, more reach than the 17-55, but if you need to do more close up work one of the 50 series would be great. Primes are generally very sharp and faster than zooms. Macro lenses are considerations as well if you want to do that kind of work.

And, some things that are really necessary accessories: a solid tripod, a cable release, and a hotshoe flash!

Well, if you can get started with that list, you'll be quite pleased, and then keep coming here and we can help you spend even more of your money!!

I just received the 16-35LII.
Absolutely incredible lens!
For the christmas mood....here's a shot @ 35mm, f/2.8 >>>

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Hi Tom,
I know your first shot (which i REALLY like!).
It's funny...I found it at flickr and posted the link to your shot in a forum a couple of days ago.
Do you actually use any filters on your 16-35L II?
best,
Ben

amoergosum wrote in post #4501984
Do you actually use any filters on your 16-35L II?
best,
Ben

I have never used a polarizer with that lens. A polarizer on a lens that wide always make the sky look uneven and weird. I do use a Neutral Density Filter when called for. I use a Lee system.
-Tom K.

amoergosum wrote in post #4501984
Hi Tom,
I know your first shot (which i REALLY like!).
It's funny...I found it at flickr and posted the link to your shot in a forum a couple of days ago.
Do you actually use any filters on your 16-35L II?
best,
Ben

I use a CPL on mine all the time. If you are interested, I'll post a couple here.

edit: I just remembered, ALL the pictures in this gallery are with the 16-35 + CPL: http://www.cyclingcapt​ured.com/gallery/37897​29#218586414

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

tonylong wrote in post #4492002
I have a 10-22 that I use with my 30D and a 16-35 that I use with my 5D. I haven't done a series of tests and comparisons between the two, though. I can say that I'm happy with the results from both of these lenses.

For the APS-C cameras, my most recommended set of lenses would be:

Definitely the 17-55 2.8 IS -- this is a superb lens, the best of its type, and is worth scraping for or borrowing for. It's ideal as a walk-around lens as well as indoors closer-up photography. The only "lack" is that it is not as long as you might need, but it is sharp, fast, and has IS, and great IQ.

You would eventually want a telephoto lens. The low cost 70-300 IS is fine for general use. The 70-200 series is for if you want to "get serious".

Ultra wide, I'd go for the 10-22 in a hearbeat. It really does a good job.

Then, I'd go for a good prime, depending on your needs. The 85 series is great, more reach than the 17-55, but if you need to do more close up work one of the 50 series would be great. Primes are generally very sharp and faster than zooms. Macro lenses are considerations as well if you want to do that kind of work.

And, some things that are really necessary accessories: a solid tripod, a cable release, and a hotshoe flash!

Well, if you can get started with that list, you'll be quite pleased, and then keep coming here and we can help you spend even more of your money!!

Great!

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated.

oh, nice shots here.

I just got mine about a week ago. I'm really liking this lens, though the weather hasn't really been conducive for putting it through it's paces.