Returned my 16-35

Hello,
For what it's worth I just wanted to point out to the group my dissatisfaction with the 16-35 L lens. For the price $1350 from Amazon.com it wasn't worth it at all. I used it just a couple days before I realized I wasn't getting any value from it. I actually took it off my 5D and went back to my 24-105, right in the middle of a dimly lit presentation. I basically bought it to capture wide angles and to ensure that I would be getting enough light since the 16-35 went to 2.8... after reviewing my histogram and then seeing the relatively lower IQ compared to my 24-105 I made up my mind to return it. Also, on the 5D using 16mm is not practical.

Just my two cents.

Well, the 24-105L has the 3 stop IS theoretically giving you an extra 2 stops of hand holdability over the 16-35L. (Of course this won't help to stop the action)

Not sure if that had enything to do with it. An f2.8 isn't going to get you too far if it was very dark in there.

Is it actually possible to evaluate IQ by looking at your histogram???

Honestly, I would have used my 35L for such a situation...not the 16-35L.

Using 16mm on a 5D can be practical. It all depends on what you are shooting...

trailrider wrote in post #6741917
Hello,
For what it's worth I just wanted to point out to the group my dissatisfaction with the 16-35 L lens. For the price $1350 from Amazon.com it wasn't worth it at all. I used it just a couple days before I realized I wasn't getting any value from it. I actually took it off my 5D and went back to my 24-105, right in the middle of a dimly lit presentation. I basically bought it to capture wide angles and to ensure that I would be getting enough light since the 16-35 went to 2.8... after reviewing my histogram and then seeing the relatively lower IQ compared to my 24-105 I made up my mind to return it. Also, on the 5D using 16mm is not practical.

Just my two cents.

Was it a bad copy, do you think? I hear all this stuff about bad copies. That is the next lens I am eyeing, and I am on a crop. Are you going to try for a "better copy?"

Though I haven't heard too many QC cases with the 16-35L MKII, I did have to send mine in for calibration as it was front focusing at 35mm while it was find at 16mm, something I cannot micro adjust for.

It came back properly calibrated...this lens is not known for having unsolvable issues like the 50L for example...

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6742001
Was it a bad copy, do you think? I hear all this stuff about bad copies. That is the next lens I am eyeing, and I am on a crop. Are you going to try for a "better copy?"

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6742001
Was it a bad copy, do you think? I hear all this stuff about bad copies. That is the next lens I am eyeing, and I am on a crop. Are you going to try for a "better copy?"

Save some $$$ and get a 17-40 instead...

One millimeter and one stop won't kill you and when the time comes that you want to move to FF, you won't hardly notice the difference.

On a crop, I'd get the 17-55 f2.8 IS, but then again a few years after its release, we are starting to see issues with that one aren't we?

I would have opted for the 24L f/1.4, but F4 is not going to get your shutter speed higher than with a f/2.8 glass. Can you post the shots with 16-35L if you got any. Also the shots you have with the 24-105L

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6742015
Save some $$$ and get a 17-40 instead...

One millimeter and one stop won't kill you and when the time comes that you want to move to FF, you won't hardly notice the difference.

Hey you

I am wanting to rid my 10-22 for this and yes, I realize.....

I am not happy with the 10-22, and I am finding I do a lot of stuff 13 and up. I don't care for the distortion. So is 17 realistic? How does this differ from 16+? Ugh I should go take a nap.

Probably just the 1 stop of light.
Otherwise they are in the same ballpark as far as IQ is concerned.

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6742045
Hey you

I am wanting to rid my 10-22 for this and yes, I realize.....

I am not happy with the 10-22, and I am finding I do a lot of stuff 13 and up. I don't care for the distortion. So is 17 realistic? How does this differ from 16+? Ugh I should go take a nap.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6742015
Save some $$$ and get a 17-40 instead...

One millimeter and one stop won't kill you and when the time comes that you want to move to FF, you won't hardly notice the difference.

nicksan wrote in post #6742021
On a crop, I'd get the 17-55 f2.8 IS, but then again a few years after its release, we are starting to see issues with that one aren't we?

The OP is shooting with a 5D...

16mm on a 5D could be very practical, it just depends on what you shoot. TBH, 24mm on a 5D is pretty darn wide as it is. If you don't find yourself shooting much below 24, then get rid of the 16-35L. Pick yourself up a 24L or 35L in its place.

nicksan wrote in post #6742021
On a crop, I'd get the 17-55 f2.8 IS, but then again a few years after its release, we are starting to see issues with that one aren't we?

what issues are you all starting to see?

If he has a 24-105...one can consider a canon or sigma 15mm fixed...my 2cents

Yeah just noticed. Got thrown off by the 40D listed in his gear list!
My bad!

argyle wrote in post #6742771
The OP is shooting with a 5D...

16mm on a 5D could be very practical, it just depends on what you shoot. TBH, 24mm on a 5D is pretty darn wide as it is. If you don't find yourself shooting much below 24, then get rid of the 16-35L. Pick yourself up a 24L or 35L in its place.

IS crapping out. AF motor crapping out.
Might be isolated, but I'm seeing several of them in the boards...

cyruz wrote in post #6743195
what issues are you all starting to see?

after how long? i can see not using the IS ALL the time, but the AF can be an issue