16-35 sensitive?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by edward_h, Apr 1, 2005.

  1. I'm one of those people who always manage to bang their camera against
    something or other. Mostly it's the lens that takes the hit.

    I'm wondering if anyone knows how much of a beating the 16-35 can take.

    I recently banged up my 35/2 (surprize, surprize) and don't want it to
    happen to any other lens I buy.
  2. The general consenses, based upon several years of reading about this sort of behavior, (the need to take it out on expensive glass), most, not only "L" glass, can take a pretty good beating with little to no damage.

    We'll hope that your poor little 16-35, a lense I have and love, will never have to find out what kind of "metal" it's made of:)

    Hope the above helps.
  3. "I am looking for a lens that zooms in well, and does well with close-up shots."

    Sigma's 100-300mm f/4.0 fits this above spec real nicely but it did run me about $750.00. The image quality is incredible and I tested it under ridged repeatable conditions and it tested out sharper then the Canon 300mm f/4.0L non-IS, which also tested out very sharp.

    You'll find that the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 is large, a bit heavy, even for a working class kinda guy; the use of will benefit greatly from a halfway decent (under $200.00) monopod/ballhead combo.

    "However, $600+ is a little too expensive for my price range at the moment."

    Then I would recommend Canon's 75-300mm IS. It's a "much" better lense then most people give this crunchy operating lense credit for. This lense really shines on a 1.6x sensor crop such as is the case on a DReb or, 10D, 20D. I've have one and for an all around beater of a lense, it has no peers. It's not an "L" lense but for the price, it's a lense that would make any soccer dad/mom happy:)

    One shouldn't overlook Canon's 70-200mm f/4.0L. It's probably Canon's sharpest zoom lense and rivals most of Canon's primes in flat field sharpness, edge-to-edge. It takes to a Canon 1.4x tele extender very nicely but you do lose a stop of light (f/5.6) and it doesn't have IS, so in lower light situations, a monopod/ballhead is strongly advised.

    A couple of nice walk-around lenses would be either Tamron's 24-135mm macro or Canon's 28-135IS. The Tamron version is the sharper of the two but the Canon version tops out with the IS. I purchased the Tamron version for it's sharpness, wide field-of-view and the macro feature. The Canon version is a very close second both in image quality and how close it can focus as well as it has the IS feature.

    "In any case, I would still like to know good close-up lenses even if they are above $600."

    Two lenses come to mind. A used Canon 28-70mm as the close-up capabilities of this lense are great for flowers and the buttery smooth image is an experience to behold. There's something special about the flower images this lense helps create. Then there's the Sigma 180mm Macro. Warning, looking through the viewfinder with this lense attached has been known to cause spontaneous "eye bleed." Not only is this a stellar macro lense but it's also flat out a great prime that will rival "any" 200mm prime, including Canon's much vaunted 200mm f/1.8L; but it is f/3.5, not f/1.8.
  4. Oops! Sorry. Wrong heading. Moderater, could you please remove this post. Thanks!
  5. > We'll hope that your poor little 16-35, a lense I have and love, will never have to find out what kind of "metal" it's made of:)

    My 24-70 has had several discussions with hard, inanimate objects and hasn't yet been damaged (other than the hood getting scraped real good).

    The 200IS hasn't yet been out on the town, but I don't expect it to fail anytime soon.

    Let's hope the 16-35 and its tiny hood can take the strain of working with me. :)
  6. I try not to use hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment as a bumper, so I can't really speak from personal experience of having tested all my equipment by whacking it into things to see how much abuse it could take before breaking :)
    Pros equipment is expected to live a rough life. Particularly in some branches, such as photojournalism, where the photographer may be in a scrum, with several cameras hanging off their neck and potentially banging into whatever happens to be nearby (walls, other PJs' cameras, etc.). So pro gear is designed to be more rugged than consumer gear.
    I have two L lenses (17-40/4 and 300/4 IS) and have owned four non-L lenses (currently have 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS and 50/1.4; previously had 28-105/3.5-4.5 and 100-300/4.5-5.6), and for what it's worth, the L lenses do feel more robust. The 300's barrel is a solid chunk of metal and would probably do more damage to whatever it hits than would be done to it. The 17-40 is more plasticky but it definitely has a more solid feel to it than any of the non-L lenses.
    AFAIK, the 16-35's construction is virtually identical to that of the 17-40; if I were blindfolded and someone handed me both lenses and asked me to tell them apart, probably the only thing I'd notice is that one is slightly heavier than the other. I would expect the 16-35 to be pretty sturdily build and able to absorb some punishment.
  7. If you attach it to a solid body like the 1DS Mark II it's great for driving tent stakes.
  8. Edward, I suspect the 35/2 is far less resilient than the 16-35. Just a guess. I am fairly careful with my lenses and don't have a banged up anything to give a good response, but I bet the L bodies are better :). Just a guess.
  9. I've only shot Canon about half a year thus far but my cameras and lenses get a fair share
    of abuse, both impact and environmental. I've had a camera short out on me from
    waterlogging and must admit to having dropped lenses once or twice, but the L-series
    lenses are handling it all very, very well. The smartly recessed focus/zoom rings are great,
    protected from impact fairly well; the only thing I'd really worry about would be the frint
    element or dropping the thing with the rear cap off. Regular bumps and scrapes seem to
    roll right off. *knocks wood*
  10. WM


    Hi Edward,

    I'd buy insurance if I were you. I bought insurance against theft and accidental damage, after getting my 17-40 & 10d completely splashed at a beach once from an unexpected wave............yes, it was dripping wet ! No submersion, but a heavy splash. My heart stopped ! It all worked fine after I immediately switched it all off and gave it a good thorough dry.

    Since buying insurance, you may feel more at ease to use your gear gard. Heehee ! (Though if you keep on claiming, your premiums might go pretty high pretty quick !)

  11. > I'd buy insurance if I were you.

    My stuff _is_ insured, but the problem is that the repair costs of the 32/2 is about 200$, the insurance's self risk (?) is 200$ and a new lens costs about 250$.

    So I'm not really gaining anything by claiming the 35 on my insurance.

    If I were to *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* up my 200IS, then the insurance company would hear about it quick snap.

Share This Page