staszek Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Can anyone tell me if I can make a good use of EF 16-35/2.8L mounted on a 400D body? Or would you ratherrecommend getting a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens instead? I suppose getting a 5D and the L lens would bethe optimal solution, but my budget is quite tight at the moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_t Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 It depends on what you want. On the 400D, the 16-35 is no ultrawide lens any more. Its just a (very expensive) wide to normal lens. If you want ultrawide for the 400D, take the efs 10-22. (or have a look on the Sigma 10-20). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m._scott_clay1 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 If you are getting the 5D, get the EF 16-35. You will probably do most of your wide shooting on the 5D once you get it. You won't be able to use the 10-22 on the 5D, but you can still use the 16-35 on the 400D. When I got my 5D I chose the 17-40L and have been very happy with it. I don't usually use it for low light shooting so the f4 didn't matter to me. I've put my Tokina 12-24 that I did use on the 40D out for sale. Best of luck. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_higdon Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I cannot comment on the newer (II) version of the 16-35 but if you are talking about the older,original one I would not recommend it on the Xti/400D. I rented that lens three weeks ago for both landscape and indoor use and I can say that, as to landscape use, the 17-40 f/4 is much better all around and, indeed, I have had better luck with my Canon 17-85. Indoors, at a reasonably well lit dance recital, the results were not much better. When I returned the lens to a very well respected Baltimore camera store I was told that they were not surprised at all and there were reasons the model had been updated to the II version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 What exactly do you want? If you want an UWA, the 10-22 is a better solution. If you want a GP, the 17-55 is a better solution. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_smith6 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Maybe EOS 5D + 17-40/4L? It would certainly be a better choice than EOS 400D + 10-22 or 16-35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m._scott_clay1 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Oops! I didn't see the part of the message that said you budget was too tight for the 5D. In that case, consider the Tokina 12-24. Very sharp, good lens for much less. It's the only non-Canon lens I've owned but have been very pleased with it. I agree with Yakim that the EFS17-55 is a better solution for you 400D if you really don't need the ultra wide. Everyone I know that uses the EFS17-55 absolutely loves it, but remember, you won't be able to use it on a 5D if you upgrade later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_higdon Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 There's also a new Tamron 10-24mm. Here's a note from Bob Atkins regarding same: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_10_24.html BTW, the camera shop had told me (right or wrong?) that the original 16-35 f/2.8 was designed for full frame film cameras and not for something like my crop sensor Xti (your 400D). Makes sense I guess since that lens is probably much older than the Xti itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 It all comes down to a question of what you intend to do with the lenses. Depending upon the answer to that question, anyt among a whole series of lenses could turn out to be your best choice: EF 17-40mm f/4 L, EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L, EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 18-55mm IS kit lens, EFS 10-22, or certain primes. Frankly, if the _features_ of the 16-35mm f/2.8 seem right for your work and you are using a cropped sensor camera (as you are) the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens could be a better choice on several counts including: IQ, price, image stabilization, etc. If you need an ultra-wide angle lens then the issue is largely one of focal length range, and in this case the 10-22 could be your best bet. If you shoot primarily small aperture photographs (e.g. landscape, architecture, etc.) and know that you will soon move to FF then the 17-40 could be your best choice. If you know that you will soon move to FF and you are primarily interested in a lens that will perform as an ultra-wide on FF for low light handheld work then the 16-35 could be your lens. And so on... Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I have read good reviews for the sigma 10-20 which is only about $440 at Amazon. I also hear the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is very good and can also mount on a full frame ( it will be used like a prime on full frame at 16mm ) http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staszek Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 I was going to use this lens for ultra wide angle shots. If I chose the Sigma or Tamron / Tokina equivalents, will they be ultra wide on 400D and remain so on a full sensor-equipped 5D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Yes but not all UW for your 400D will mount on a 5D. For instance the 10-22 is EF-S so it will not mount on a 5D. Not sure about the sigma. They have a 12-24 that is totally full frame compatible as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbp Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 For UW work, the 10-22 will probably be a better choice. If you plan to upgrade at some point to full frame sensor, remember that the 10-22 will not mount on 5D or 1D series. I use the 17-40 on FF sensor, with great results. If you don't need to freeze motion, f/4 works perfectly, and the 17-40 is about half the price of 16-35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erictomenga Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I bought the 16-35/2.8L lens for my 30D. I decided I wanted a L series lens and since I would eventually get a full sensor body one day. I guess you will have to decide on whether double the price is worth the better optics and sealed body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 You may want to consider the 17-40 F4. I had this lens for years and just recently upgraded to the 16-35 Mk II. The quality difference is negligable - since iIshoot film e.g. Velvia 50 the speed was the main reason I swaped. With digital working at generally higher ISOs the 17-40 will probably work well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 OP later wrote: "I was going to use this lens for ultra wide angle shots. If I chose the Sigma or Tamron / Tokina equivalents, will they be ultra wide on 400D and remain so on a full sensor-equipped 5D?" 16mm is not "ultra wide" on a cropped sensor body. If you want UWA on such a body you will need the EFS 10-22 or equivalent. A general rule of thumb (about these rather imprecise descriptions) is that a lens that is a "ultra wide lens" on full frame is only a "wide angle" on a cropped sensor body. Regarding the 17-40, which I own and use a lot: I find it to be an excellent landscape/architecture/similar lens for shooting at medium to small apertures on a full frame body. My experience with this lens on a cropped sensor body was not as positive, largely because it was difficult to resolve the soft corners issue while staying at the larger apertures used to avoid diffraction blur on the smaller sensor cameras. In addition, on crop it seems to me that the EFS 17-55 f2/8 IS beats it on a just about all counts except price and, so some extent, build quality. (The latter would not be an issue for me since the 17- 55 is just fine in this regard.) Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now