16-35 on a crop

I have the 10-22. I like it, but I am not enjoying the distortion at 10 to about 14 or so. I have no intention of going full frame anytime soon. Heh, she says. Yes, I have searched the forum, and found some good threads. I am interested in seeing 16-35 photos on a crop, wide end. My 10-22 is driving me crazy. Its a love/hate, and I am just wondering the difference and loss in 16-35. I am OK with 17-40, but being new and all, I don't get that 1 mm difference and what it does that my feet can't. I just am basically looking for a replacement for my 10-22, its too funky for me. I like it on the longer end, it is awesome. But I am looking for who knows what and just wanted to toss this out there. Thanks for any input.

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6742173
I am OK with 17-40, but being new and all, I don't get that 1 mm difference and what it does that my feet can't.

Sorry, I don't have an answer to your question, but in reference to the bit I've quote above - the main difference is that the 16-35 has a maximum aperture of F/2.8, while on the 17-40 it's F/4.

so if u are shooting too much indoor~
then take the 17-40 after all it saves u $800

Here is a focal length comparison tool from Tamron: http://www.tamron.com …cal-length-comparison.php

1mm is not going to make much difference, IMHO. At least not as much as the difference in price tag or lens speed.

Perhaps some more experienced members can share some insight into UWA lenses. I just got my 11-16 and I understand it takes some time getting to learn how to shoot with these things.

honestly, use the 10-22 between 16 and 22 for a week.. never wider...

thats what putting the 16-35 on your crop would get you in the long run.

not worth it in my opinion.

I went 5d and sold my 10-22 with my xti at the time.

bought the 16-35 the same day.

the 16-35 is miles better, same width on a different body, but miles more usable.

If I were you, I'd get a 17-55 if you arent going ff. Way better on a crop than the 16-35, cheaper too

pourmeaguinness wrote in post #6742270
If I were you, I'd get a 17-55 if you arent going ff. Way better on a crop than the 16-35, cheaper too

+1. I agree (I've owned the 17-55 and 24-105) and the 17-55 is THE lens for a crop (if you have the cash). Never owned the 16-35 or 17-40, but to me those are for FF; there are better options for a crop. If 17 is wide enough for you, you are all set.

P.S. I like the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron also (own one now) for hundreds less than the 17-55 IS.

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6742173
I have the 10-22. I like it, but I am not enjoying the distortion at 10 to about 14 or so. I have no intention of going full frame anytime soon. Heh, she says. Yes, I have searched the forum, and found some good threads. I am interested in seeing 16-35 photos on a crop, wide end. My 10-22 is driving me crazy. Its a love/hate, and I am just wondering the difference and loss in 16-35. I am OK with 17-40, but being new and all, I don't get that 1 mm difference and what it does that my feet can't. I just am basically looking for a replacement for my 10-22, its too funky for me. I like it on the longer end, it is awesome. But I am looking for who knows what and just wanted to toss this out there. Thanks for any input.

i'm not a big UWA fan either. when a 1.6 crop was my main camera i used the 17-40L and 24-70L. 17mm wasn't quite wide enough all the time but i prefered the extra reach of the 17-40L to the crazy width of an UWA lens.

that said, i find that the 16-35L II is perfect on my mark III. it gives me a 21mm FOV @ 16mm and at 35mm it's long enough to be useful in many shooting situations.

i really like the 16-35L II on my mark III and 30d.....

here's a shot @ 23mm with my mark III......

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6742173
I have the 10-22. I like it, but I am not enjoying the distortion at 10 to about 14 or so.

Perspective distortion is not a function of focal length, it is a function of the distance to your subject. The solution is to step back. If you can't then get the framing you want, and aren't willing to crop to achieve it, you need a longer lens.

I think that what you've found is that you have the wrong tool for the job you want to do.

If 14 mm allows you to get a happy combination of scale and distance, then 16 or 17, or even 18 won't be much different. You have options that range in price from the 18-55 IS to the 17-40L, 17-55/2.8 IS, or 16-35L. There is also the Tamron 17-50/2.8 if you want something fast, relatively inexpensive, and don't need IS.

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6742173
I have the 10-22. I like it, but I am not enjoying the distortion at 10 to about 14 or so. I have no intention of going full frame anytime soon. Heh, she says. Yes, I have searched the forum, and found some good threads. I am interested in seeing 16-35 photos on a crop, wide end. My 10-22 is driving me crazy. Its a love/hate, and I am just wondering the difference and loss in 16-35. I am OK with 17-40, but being new and all, I don't get that 1 mm difference and what it does that my feet can't. I just am basically looking for a replacement for my 10-22, its too funky for me. I like it on the longer end, it is awesome. But I am looking for who knows what and just wanted to toss this out there. Thanks for any input.

Keep your 10-22 and use it as a 14-22. You don't need a new lens.

It depends what kind of distortion you are taking offence too. If its wide angle perspective distortion a new lens will not help, this is a function of physics not lens design.

If its barrel/pincushion distortion (curvature of lines) then yes your 10-22 has -1.25% distortion at 10mm, 0.045% distortion at 14mm and 0.463% at 22mm. So I could understand not liking it at 10mm (-1.25%). For reference the 17-55 at 17mm has -2.03% so avoid that. The 17-40 has -2.53% at 17mm so avoid that even more. The 16-35 has -2.37% at 16mm so avoid that.

Basically your 10-22 @14mm is far better for barrel/pincushion distortion that all the lens that have been mentioned at there widest settings. As mentioned before all lenses are equal for perspective distortion as that is a function of physics that the lenses can't really do much about.

Some lenses that didn't get mentioned are the sigma 12-24 which has -0.611% at 12mm, so at 12mm its comparable to your 10-22 at 14. Its also a full frame lens if/when you go to a APS-H or FF camera. The sigma 10-20 at 10mm has only -0.604% but its also kinda wavy and its a APS-C lens. Again, you don't need either of these lenses, you have a top performing lens as it is, go learn how to get the best out of it

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6742173
.......... I am interested in seeing 16-35 photos on a crop, wide end. ......... But I am looking for who knows what and just wanted to toss this out there. Thanks for any input.

If you use your 10-22 from 16mm to 22mm, you will emulate fairly well what the 16-35 will do for the same focal length range. Field (angle) of view will be identical for both lenses when using the same focal lengths. Perspective and any "perspective distortion" will be identical as well.

The 16-35 may possibly have a little different color rendition and sharpness characteristics, but nothing that I would call significant. Of course, the 16-35 does have the advantage of being a bit faster (f/2.8 maximum aperture) and that may be a useful advantage.

That said, I use the original model 16-35 f/2.8L on my 20D and like it a lot. I tried a 10-22 that I borrowed from a friend and verified my initial thoughts that the ultra-wide thing is - at least for me - a very special-purpose thing that I can live without. I have not purchased one.

Thanks for all the input, yall. I am looking to trade my 10-22 and cash for the 16-35 II, but as I figured, there haven't been any takers yet. Buying the 16-35 outright is not something I can do right now, but I have spent the last few days playing with the 10-22 on 17mm, to see how I felt. And I want the 16-35. I cannot shot past dusk on the 10-22, which does me almost no good anyhow. Rambling. Its the pie fumes. Anyhow, thanks again for the input, its helped a ton

Deb, there's benefit in finding an original 16-35 f/2.8L (NOT the Mark II).

First off, it was and still is a great lens design.

Second, it has a 77mm filter thread just like a couple of your other lenses.

Third, you could probably find a perfectly pristine lens - probably on the used market - for much less money than the current Mark II version.

SkipD wrote in post #6766029
Deb, there's benefit in finding an original 16-35 f/2.8L (NOT the Mark II).

First off, it was and still is a great lens design.

Second, it has a 77mm filter thread just like a couple of your other lenses.

Third, you could probably find a perfectly pristine lens - probably on the used market - for much less money than the current Mark II version.

I have been thinking that route, too. B&H has one for 999. If I can unload my 10-22 quickly, I might just grab it. I am thinking about it Thanks so much

Just get my 16-35 Mark I...much cheaper option

mmmmm....pie.....