Impressed with my new 16-35 II!

newworld666 wrote in post #9019220
Of course it can be an issue not to have f1.4 for a wide angle
I use it indoor pubs, church, museum, family, but in the night outdoor too ... I never use flash ... and I don't like to get ghost of walking people on the photos so minimum speed is 1/125..

This looks really handheld and struggling for light, what do you mean shooting with a minimum 1/125? At 1/125 that lady's hand should not imply so much motion (unless she plans on karate chopping the guy next to him ) as would the rest of the frame too and it's already downsized so much.

you can guess a gig in a very tiny and crowdy Dublin pub with F1.4 and 1600 Iso how much light there must be.

It's taken from a sequence, where it was mostly difficult to get an as sharp image as possible with a dancing singer or a violonist.. that's why I was speaking with a minimum of 1/125.


And basically, it was just to say that wide angle are very far to be concerned mainly with landscape .. I am not sure that even I do not prefer the 135L2.00 for landscape..

Another new shot with the 16-35 II and 5D II:

Yes, my plans are to add the 24 TS-E II and I am going to keep the 16-35 for the rest of the ultra wide stuff. I've already replace the long end with a 35L, so between those three, I feel like I'll have wide stuff pretty covered.

Trainboy wrote in post #9018777
Yeah, once you take out the CA, it's a beauty of a lens. Still haven't convinced myself it's worth the extra thousand bucks over the 17-40, but I'm happy.

i bought my 16-35L II new two years ago for $1275. if it were today i'd probably have stuck with the 17-40L too .

ed rader

tsdevine wrote in post #9013635
Well, I have a 21mm Zeiss Distagon and I find it complementary to the 16-35 mk II. Neither can do what the other can do (well, the zoom can do 21mm, but not as sharp.) I would consider the 24mm f/1.4 II complementary as well. The OP would have to get quite a few primes to cover that range. I hear the 24 TS-E II is quite the amazing lens too.

-Tim

I used to think of buying the 21mm Zeiss, or the 17/24 TSE to compliment my 17-40L becaused of perceived sharpness. Decided now against that route. Actually the problem is me being fussy with sharpness coming from 24-70 and 135. Wow, you seem to have loads to gear to carry for a WA.... but it's a happy problem!

It's a cracking lens, trolling in this thread notwithstanding.

I see another member attempting to justify their purchase.

Anyways, to the OP, enjoy your new lens. Looks like you're already getting fantastic results with it.