16-35 I vs II on crop

bohdank wrote in post #11510081
Newspaper work ? Get the 17-40 and save some cash.

i doubt a journalist would ever favor an f4 lens over f2.8.

ed rader

Probably true. Then again, pros, half the time, don't even know what lens they are using

When's the last time you saw a shallow DOF picture in a newspaper ?

16-35 MkI flares quite badly. Some comparisons here, with 17-40L, on Ken Rockwell http://www.kenrockwell​.com …5mm-performance.htm#flare

He's also reviewed the MkII and it's much better http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-ii.htm

[QUOTE=bohdank;1155522​5]Probably true. Then again, pros, half the time, don't even know what lens they are using

When's the last time you saw a shallow DOF picture in a newspaper ?[/quote]


f4 is pretty useless indoors unless you are using flash which isn't always possible. a "real" PJ would have the 16-35L II. i'd say the 16-35L II and 70-200L f2.8 IS are two lenses that are PJ must-haves with 1.3 crop.

ed rader

We have newspaper photographers stop by our theater from time to time, and they always seem to have a 1.3 crop body or two, a 70-200 2.8, and a 16-35 2.8.

The typical for work is 16-35, 24-70 or 24-105, and 70-200. Truth be told, the 24-xx(x) is used the least or replaces the 16-35 if on FF.

Back to the original post: I like my rental 16-35 II. I find that it fits my bag nicely and fills the wide niche that I was missing with 24mm on crop.

Hoppy, thanks for the link to Rockwell's page. I just checked his MK I vs 17-40 shots and wow! The flare is pretty bad with the MK I. Rockwell's review of the MK II shows almost no flare like the 17-40. I think the extra sharpness, less fringing, and less flare are worth the extra cost.

[QUOTE=ed rader;11555651]

bohdank wrote in post #11555225
Probably true. Then again, pros, half the time, don't even know what lens they are using

When's the last time you saw a shallow DOF picture in a newspaper ?[/quote]


f4 is pretty useless indoors unless you are using flash which isn't always possible. a "real" PJ would have the 16-35L II. i'd say the 16-35L II and 70-200L f2.8 IS are two lenses that are PJ must-haves with 1.3 crop.

ed rader

I'm not saying they don't use the 16-35 for their wide angle, just, based on what I see day in and day out in the papers/news, they could do without it. It is better to be prepared for anything that comes up, when the shot must make it into the pages of the paper.

16-35 is the second most used lens, behind the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, for photojournalism. Also, the 16-35 isn't what I'd call a shallow DoF lens.

Corner performance favors the Mk II, but with a 1.6X, you probably wouldn't see that. With the 1.3X, maybe. Flare is very different. The original Mk I could be coaxed into showing some big flare spots in the image, while the Mk II is very resistent to flare.

twoshadows wrote in post #11559801
16-35 is the second most used lens, behind the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, for photojournalism. Also, the 16-35 isn't what I'd call a shallow DoF lens.

16-35/24-70/70-200

There is nothing you can't shoot.

bohdank wrote in post #11560319
16-35/24-70/70-200

There is nothing you can't shoot.

Macro?

KY707 wrote in post #11560348
Macro?

Crop

I would posit that the 24-70 is unnecessary IF one uses two different format bodies...

twoshadows wrote in post #11560633
I would posit that the 24-70 is unnecessary IF one uses two different format bodies...

The 24-70 is repetitive even if the shooter has two bodies with the same format. I like the 16-35, 50, and 70-200 trilogy. Even with one body.