16-35 f/2.8L USM

[valo_soul]

First off, I apologize for creating another lens info/opinion thread. I am

about 98% sure I am buying this lens and was just about to do so. Now, I know

sample images found on the net are no rock solid formation to determine which

lenses perform well. They can give some good insight though. I absolutely need

the 2.8 aperture so that basically says I have to get this lens anyway. I am

going full frame so the 10-22 is completely eliminated. The thing that has me

kind of scared is that after looking at about 50 or so samples from the 16-35

on dpchallenge.com, 99% of them look awful! Terribly soft images for the most

part. Then I go to the 17-40 and I see stunning sharp, contrasty beautiful

images. I'm thinking maybe since more people own the 17-40, (because of it's

significantly lower price tag) there are just more images out there and more

skillfully taken shots. From what I understand the 16-35 should be equal in

image quality if not slightly better (one ground and polished aspherical with

1 replica and 1 glass molded vs 2 replica and 1 glass molded) The general

consensus seems to match this. Perhaps some lovely users could supply me with

some 16-35 images to make me feel once more, that I am making a good purchase.

Thanks everyone.

[dcains]

You've written that virtually all the 16-35 images you've seen don't please you, while all the 17-40's do. Yet, you're asking to be convinced that the 16-35 is the next lens you should purchase. What's wrong with this picture (pun intended)? Is f/2.8 versus f/4 really such a big deal? If I need more light, I simply bump the ISO a notch or two. Are you shooting film or digital? Finally, I own a 17-40, love it every time it's on my 30D, and won't try to talk you into the 16-35, either.

[canonfodder]

I am lucky enough to own a 5D and the 16-35 f2.8 and whilst I did consider buying the 17-40 f4 I promised myself I would buy the best glass I could. I also own a 70-200 f2.8 IS and the rationale behind me wanting these lenses is simple. With the use of the Canon 2x converter I could cover 16-35 at f2.8 then 32-70 at f4 (with the converter on, losing 2 stops) then 70-200 at f2.8 and finally 140-400 at f4. This is my logic and I know there'l be folks out there who don't agree with it. As for sharpness, I have a good number of shots (albeit JPEG renderings) on here that were taken with the 16-35, so take a look! You pay your money and you take your choice.

[digitmstr]

The 16-35 is one of the most used ultra-wides in the world of professional photography (be it PJ, Sports, Fashion, etc...i.e. people making a living with it, supporting their families). Do you really think that every one of those professional photographers is wrong and dpchallenge is right?

 

Rent one and see for yourself.

[valo_soul]

Unfortunately I do not have the option of renting lenses where I live here on the east coast of Canada. I really wish I did. No, Giampi, I do not doubt the professionals and whomever uses the lens. I'm just going by the images I am able to find. I'd just like to see as many as I can. Thanks.

[aaron_lam]

Chris... you CAN'T put a Canon 2x tele on a 16-35mm. You shouldn't put a tele on any wide lens.

 

James, if you "absolutely need the 2.8" what decision is there to be made?

[awindsor]

Wide open at the widest setting on full frame you have something to gripe about but otherwise this lens is very good. Furthermore it is basically the only game in town.

 

I can only conclude that owners of the 16-35/2.8 who post on dpchallenge are overpaid capitalist stooges with not a creative bone in their bodies whereas the 17-40/4L owners are (now) starving artists who are able to coax beautiful images from their cheaper (and ergo) inferior lenses ;)

 

Can't help you with beautiful 16-35/2.8 images but in my portfolio you will find lots of terribly soft images taken with the 17-40/4L that will help restore the balance.

[pete w]

James, I have used this lens in just about every situation I can think of from commercial

shootings,weddings,rodeo and documentary.

It has never let me down in any way however I let it down in a few cases point being it is

still better than I am which is usually the case.

 

The lens is tack sharp, bright in the view finder and focuses dead on in close to darkness.

 

At 2.8 on a full frame camera it can be a little soft on the edges looking at it in photoshop

at 100% but you will not see this in your prints given proper exposure and camera

techniques in the first place.

 

Take Care, Pete

[marknagel]

James, I have the lens. It isn't as sharp as my 24-70L, but it is sharper than my 10-22EFs. Both wide open. And its much sharper than the 10-22EFs when both are at f/4 (16mm-22mm). WA's are not the sharpest to begin with, but what I've seen, this is the best in the 16-24mm range.

 

m

[KenPapai]

BOTTOM Line? The 16-35 is definitely a better lens than the 17-40. Maybe not twice as good but the 16-35 is not cheap, and it's a fine, worthy L lens in Canon's line-up. You will never regret owning one and keeping it for a LONG time -- full frame, film, or even a cropped sensor -- it's a Killer Lens. *Never* terribly soft, and at most focal lengths and apertures is sharper and less distortion than the cheaper F4L kid brother.

 

I've used the 16-35 for a solid 18 mos. now and over 8,000 shots with it, and have never regretted buying that lens and don't even think about looking back.

[gdanmitchell]

Both the 17-40mm and the 16-35mm have (if you read a cross-section of different reviews

and opinions) equally good reputations.

 

If you "need" f/2.8 your choice between the two of them should be pretty straightforward.

 

Dan

 

(I have the 17-40mm and I'm quite pleased with it.)

[lee_nguyen]

I've seen people move up from 17-40 to 16-35 and I've not seen vise versa. 17-40 is no match for this one. It is not sharp at F4 and does not have the same resolution especially when you take photo of people with flash. You'll see 16-35 belongs to a different league.

I've owned the 17-40, Sigma 18-50, Sigma 17-70, Tokina 12-24 but finally, the 16-35 arrived and I never look back.

[digitmstr]

>>I'm just going by the images I am able to find. I'd just like to see as many as I can.<<

 

I understand but, it's not a NEWLY released lens. Its reputation is stellar. People who complain about this lens either have no clue or they have a really bad sample.

 

Most stores (including B&H) have a return policy. YOu could buy it and then, return it if you don't like it.

 

Contrary to popular belief that lens works very well wide open. It may not be perfect at the edges at f/2.8 but, we are talking about a 16-35 zoom! Not a special lens for scientific purposes where each line of resolution is vital.

 

Personally, I don't have a real (constant) need for such lens (that is why I bought the 24-70 instead) but, the few times I did need it the ones I rented or borrowed always worked great.

 

YOu will not be disappointed.

[lester_wareham]

Yes I agonised over the 16-35 and 17-40 issue for a long time. I too found a mix of both opinions, results and example images. The 17-40 was a much more consistant performer although it looks as if the 16-35 might be as good if you get a good copy.

 

It is also worth noting that comparision of the MTF data for both lenses gives the 17-40 a significant lead. The earlier 17-35 f2.8L correlated well with the Canon MTF and Photodo measurements for that lens.

 

Select the three focal lengths from the menu page.

 

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/Photodo_Canon_CV.htm

 

 

A few of the tests I found

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcamera.impress.co.jp%2F06_01%2Fauth%2Ftoku1%2F&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/142/sort/2/cat/11/page/1

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&desc=Canon-EF-17-40mm-f/4.0-L-USM-Lens-Sample-Crops

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/31/sort/2/cat/11/page/3

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm

 

My own Canon MTF comparison, select the focal length of interest.

 

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/List%20of%20Canon%20Data%20Comparisons.htm

[jati_lindsay]

go with the 16-35. man,... i was going to type this long thing, but i changed my mind. :-) im a leica man in my heart, and new to canon digital, but this lens, is starting to change the way i feel about digital slr photography. and then, not that it really matters, but look at how many pros use the 16-35! that should be enough to at least give it a try.......<div></div>

[pjmeade]

James the luminous landscape comparison of the 16-35 with the 17-40 may help you.

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

 

Cheers. P

[yakim_peled1]

16-35/2.8: 97 reviews, overall rating 8.8.

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=2&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

 

17-40/4: 291 reviews, overall rating 8.9.

 

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

 

 

 

 

Don't know what about you but if I had the money I'd surely get the 16-35/2.8. As I don't, I'll have to settle for the 17-40/4.

 

 

HTH.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[keith_lubow]

James - if you are going full frame you don't need a wide zoom,

in my opinion. You have enough meat to cut into with a big full

frame sensor. I would say that you are better off with a 24mm 1.4

and good walking shoes, or a 24-70 2.8. If speed is of the

essence, as you say, then not even 2.8 is good enough.

Honestly, I think high ASA looks great on digital (much better

than film). I use 3200 A LOT. Someone said that they planned to

put a TC on their 16-35, but that's not an option with that lens.

Someone also said that the 16-35 is standard among

journalists. While I am sure that this is true in many cases, I can

tell you for sure that the Getty Images standard issue to each

staff photographer is: two mark IIs, a 28-70, a 70-200, a 300, and

a 400, all 2.8s. Other lenses are available to them, but this is

what they all get to have at all times.

 

16mm is mighty wide. Are you sure you need that much angle of

view?

 

Keith

[ci_p]

I seem to have a contrary opinion (and the 16-35 lens (on a 1Ds2)). I have to use f8 to get it so I'm happy with the sharpness in the corners. Depending on the subject, that might not matter and it is ok with a wider aperture. Or it would be if I used it, but it is sitting on the shelf while I wonder what to do with it. I expected better, really.

[yakim_peled1]

>> it is sitting on the shelf while I wonder what to do with it.

 

If it is sitting on the shelf there should be no use wondering. Sell it. My guess is that you got a lemon.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ci_p]

I don't think so. Probably I'm just being fussy, or it's just not a great lens. My experience seems to match a lot of the reviews linked to above.

[jc_pinheiro]

the 16-35 is a sweet lans and i have found it to be extremely sharp, also if u want to rent one vistek will ship anywhere in canada...

[valo_soul]

Hmmm I definitely was not aware that Vistek ships their rentals. Thank you! I do believe I'll be making the purchase now though. From what I can see, the 17-40 may be slightly sharper and more contrasty at 17mm, but everywhere else, the 16-35 seems to shine brighter. Plus it offers the world of 2.8 that the other doesn't even have. I've made up my mind. Thank you all for your input and helpful links.

[peter_white2]

There are many comparisons available on the web. But one review you certainly shouldn't give any consideration to is the Ludicrous-Landscape review comparing these two lenses. The dope who wrote it claims that his comparison demonstrates that the 16-35 has more flare than the 17-40. His evidence consists of two images of the sun behind a power line tower, taken one shortly after the other. The one taken with the 16-35 clearly has more flare. He makes the point that he hasn't moved the camera while changing lenses. What he has overlooked is that while he was changing lenses, the earth continued to rotate on its axis, thereby changing the relative positions of his camera, the tower, and the sun. Given those changing positions, the amount of flare must necesarily change, regardless of the lens used.

 

Duh!

[dan_vidal]

I rented a 16-35 this past weekend for some events I was shooting. Definitely one of the most robust and reliable lenses I've shot with. The internal zoom is fantastic, and the weight makes up (in a way) for the lack of IS. I shoot in the dark so IS is important to me :)

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.cooljunkie.com/images/contributors/danvidal/galleries/2006_september/2006_september_01/space/017.jpg"></center>

<center>30D, ISO 400, 16mm, f2.8, 1/80th.

<br>

Is it worth the $1300? I would say so. I plan on getting this lens before long, and using it as my mainstay lens for when I shoot events.

</br>