Considering Canon 16-35 2.8 L

[george_katunich]

<p>In the fall of 2011 I will be taking a trip to central Europe and expect to do a lot of low light interior shooting in churches and public buildings. I have a Canon 5D II and my walk around lens is the Canon 24-105 4.0. I am expecting low light and large spaces. As I will have to do "hand held" I am thinking I may need a faster and wider lens. I am now focused on the Canon 16-35 2.8 L but if I am going to put out $1,500 I want to make sure I haven't overlooked a better option. I also don't know if I should be concerned about the lack of IS or contrast issues for exposure.<br>

I typically shoot buildings, public sculpture and landscape so I will make good use of the lens in my day to day shooting.<br>

George K. </p>

[bueh]

<p>For hand-held photography of non-moving subjects your IS zoom is better suited than an f/2.8 lens. If I were you I would get a couple of inexpensive, small primes instead of another big L zoom.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Tokina's 16-28 f/2.8 is just hitting the shelves. First feedback from users seems good. It could be a good, cheaper option.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>For the best quality interior photography even a fast lens needs a tripod. I know a tripod, even a lightweight one, will be a pain. You have three options.</p>

<p>While the 24/1.4 L is capable of getting you handheld shots with fairly low ISO settings, you will have little depth of field, and not only do you limit yourself to a single focal length but I find 24mm to narrow for most interiors.</p>

<p>Having a 14/2.8 myself I know my knee-jerk reaction would be 100% behind your choice of the 16-35/2.8 L primarily for it's exterior use during your trip and for many years of outdoor photography to come! However, you will have to venture into high ISO settings of at least 400 and probably frequently 1600 and higher. Do some experimenting with your 5D II and see if you can live with the results at high ISO.</p>

<p>I hate that IS is touted for all mainstream photography these days and it is dispicable how the manufacturers use it as a cash grab. It honestly pains me to even suggest that one could be useful for you. I have to acknowledge that for your specific purposes that an IS lens at low ISO settings MAY outperform the 16-35 at high ISO settings. Now I am going to leave and see if Canon even makes one that could be useful for interiors on full frame.....</p>

<p>....To my real surprise, they do not. Not even an EF-S lens with IS that goes wide enough for interiors. You can do some research and see if there is a third party lens that does. I'm even going to go and have a look now myself and see. I just hate trying to get through all the model letters trying to figure out what each lens is capable of.</p>

<p>So, for the moment my suggestion is indeed the 16-35/2.8 L with the risk of having to use high ISO settings or carry a small tripod. In the instances where 24mm is wide enough you have your 24-105 IS. Good luck.</p>

<p>P.S. I highly recommend used lenses. You simply will not see the difference between the 16-35 I and II. Their predessor, the Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L would also be a superb choice and costs about the same as a Canon 17-40/4 L, so a huge savings!</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>It's a good choice--probably the best you can buy. I recommend you practice with it before you go on your trip. Your camera has enough resolution that you can shoot wider than you need and then use post-processing software such as Photoshop or DXOOptics to fix up converging verticals as well as clean up distortion and other residual aberrations in the lens. You need to leave room on the margins of your frame to do this and shoot wider than you would otherwise, so it's a good idea to do some tests near home before your vacation.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I've purchased a used lens from these folks and I saved a tone of money on a 300 2.8... great people.<br>

Here is your lens for 1100.<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon-16-35mm-f2.8l-ii-serial-number-826287">http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon-16-35mm-f2.8l-ii-serial-number-826287</a></p>

[looscanon]

<p>I have the original 16-35mm f/2.8L lens which I use on both my 5D classic and 20D. A very fine lens indeed. I use it mainly for landscapes and have gotten many fine photos with it. I would recommend it very highly if you can still obtain one. My son has the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and I really can't tell the difference in image quality. Another good feature of the original is that it takes 77mm filters which fit on several other Canon lenses. I believe the II model takes an 82mm filter which is not a common size.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Here you can read some early use feedback on Tokina's 16-28:<br>

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/957619">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/957619</a></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I don't recommend this lens to most people who ask about getting an ultra wide angle lens to cover this focal length range. However, your intended use is pretty much <em>exactly what this lens was designed for</em>: hand-held low-light wide- to ultra-wide angle full frame DSLR photography where focal length flexibility is critical. I cannot think of a better option for this purpose from Canon.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[prasad_apte]

<p>ultra wide with big appertures? it is fine for low light but what about shallow DOF? will it be good for big churches? I know you already mentioned that you are going to shoot hand held but still I will say please give a second thought to carrying tripod. Even with any ultra wide. In low light tripod is your best friend.<br>

happy shooting<br>

prasad</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The 5D2 has phenominal high-ISO performance. Try some shots at ISO 1600/3200/6400 and do the RAW conversion with DxO's Optics Pro 6.5.2 using the "High ISO" preset. You'll be amazed at the performance of your IS lens combined with the 5D2's high-ISO performance.</p>

<p>Remember, many sites will not let you use a tripod and/or flash.</p>

<p>24mm on the full-frame is generally wide enough for street shooting and some interior archetectural work, but I see you're desiger for a wider lens, but I'd strongly suggest staying with IS vs. aperture for the applications you're proposing.</p>

<p>Following is a night scene shot at ISO 6400 with my 5D2 and processed with DxO's Optics Pro:</p>

<p><a title="Anyone for absinthe? by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/5190792043_85e2c6f940_z.jpg" alt="Anyone for absinthe?" width="427" height="640" /></a></p>

[dan_south]

My impressions having used both lenses in Europe and elsewhere:

 

A wide zoom lens can be very useful in European cities and towns.

 

IS will permit you to hand hold your 24-105 f/4L at slower shutter speeds than the 16-35 f/2.8L II. I'll shoot the 24-

105 at 1/20 or even down to 1/13 hand held, but I don't like to shoot the 16-35 hand held at slower speeds than 1/60.

 

The 16-35 f/2.8L II is sharper than the 24-105 f/4L, especially in the middle. You can use the 16-35 hand held, but you'll be sacrificing some of that sharpness. This lens really shines on a solid tripod, especially when focused manually using Live View.

 

The 16-35 has modest distortion at the wide end, but it is almost distortion free from 20 to 30 mm. The 24-105

exhibits considerable amounts of distortion throughout its range. The distortion can be corrected with software, but you'll lose details

on the edges of the frame, so don't crop your shots too tightly.

 

The 16-35 is slightly thinner and lighter than the 24-105 thanks to the lack of IS. Both lenses are comfortable to carry and to use.

 

The 16-35 is an excellent wide-angle video lens due to its lack of distortion in the center of its range.

 

The 5D Mark II is a strong performer at high ISO values, as someone mentioned above. But shots taken at ISO 100 or 200 will look considerably sharper when motion blur is not an obstacle.

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The 16-35 f/2.8L II is sharper than the 24-105 f/4L, especially in the middle</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"The digital picture" does not show this. It suggests that the 16-35mm is on a par with the 24-105mm from 24mm-28mm, but the 24-105mm is considerably better (at f4) than the 16-35mm at 35mm. The 16-35mm is generally acknowledged to be a bit weak at 35mm.</p>

<p>The real issue is whether you think you will need wider than 24mm. To me 24mm is plenty wide enough from most shots, so it is down to how much you need a lens wider than that. If you get the 16-35mm then your two zooms will have a wide overlap which strikes me as inefficient.</p>

<p>Have you considered either the Zeiss ZE 21mm (f2.8) or the 18mm (f3.5)? Both of these lenses are a lot better in than the 16-35mm. However, they won't save you much if at all over the 16-35mm. The other considerations are the 15mm fisheye and the 20mm Voigtlander Color Skopar (f3.5), both small, light and much less expensive. The former is a great performer (but a fisheye) and the Voigtlander is tiny and probably has a performance on a par with 16-35mm.</p>

<p>Just some other suggestions for you to consider!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have the 5DII and 16-35 F2.8 II and they work well together. Like John I find that IS can be useful on longer lenses but do not miss it on wide lenses - especially given the high ISo performance of bodies like the 5DII. A few years ago I tested the 16-35 I and found it to be quite soft at the edges wide open so I bought a 17-40 F4L as it was half the price and performed almost as well as the MkI F2.8 lens I tested. When the 16-35 f2.8 II came out I compared it to my 17-40 and found it was sharper wide open on a full frame body. I sold the 17-40 and bought a 16-35 F2.8 II and love the lens. While it is expensive, needs 82mm filters (and Cokin P series filters vignette) and suffers from flare it is a great lens.<br>

The attached link compares the 16-35 with the Mk II lens and is similar to my in store tests</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=114&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Even at ISO 6400, I find myself handholding my 24-105mm at shutter speeds as low as 1/20th second. The IS is very useful in these situations. Some people may never do that, but many of us do often.</p>

[www.photo.netphotoslan]

<p>For indoor low-light: EF 35mm f/1.4L. Perfect with a 5DII. Buttered milk. Sweet. 'Nuff said.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Robin - I have the 24-70 F2.8 not the 24-105 F4 ( I used to have it but sold it to get the 24-70 which is a sharper lens, I never owned the 16-35 II and 24-105 at the same time) but I find that my 24-70 is sharper from 24mm to 35mm than the 16-35 F2.8 II - especially at the edges. That said the 16-35 is very usable even wide open at these focal lengths. I find my 16-35 F2.8 II to be best at the wider focal lengths - especially when used wide open. I assume that Canon has tried to optimize it's performance to make it very good (for a zoom) at 16mm and F2.8.<br>

I looked at the Zeiss 21 F2.8 when I bought the zoom but found the quality difference not that great and liked the AF and range of the Canon zoom. This is just personal preference and the Zeiss lenses are both very sharp. <br>

Here is the Digital picture results which are similar to my findings - the Zeiss is shaper, mainly at the edges.<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=708&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=1&API=1<br>

I tested the 18 F3.5 against the Canon 17 F4 TS and decided on the Canon - which should arrive shortly. The Canon lens is an amazing performer for a prime (never mind a TS lens) but the price is high. Indeed the 24mm Mk II TS lens is amazingly sharp.</p>

<p>For versatility I like the Canon 16-35 F2.8 II a lot and it gets lots of use on my 7D as a standard zoom as well as doing duty on my full frame and APS-H bodies.</p>

[miguel_torres1]

<p>I considerend the TOKINA 16-28 Instead, let me tell you my story:<br>

1. My first wide Angle lens was the Peleng on a 40D (APS-C Sensor) it was amazing and I did a lots of shots with it, but sadly in a dark wedding I dropped it L and decide to replace it with a “better” wide Angle lens so I ordered the SIGMA 10-20mm<br>

2. With my Sigma I was really unhappy cause the IQ wasn’t that good enough for my needs, and after I upgraded to the Full Frame Canon 5DMk2 the lens became obsolete.<br>

3. I wanted to upgrade to the L-Lens 17-40mm but I read that it wasn’t a good quality lens so I decide to go for the best, so I went and look the …<br>

4. Canon 16-35L … it was amazing… really good quality, lightweight lens but TOO EXPENSIVE L, looking around I found out that TOKINA makes a High Quality lens for Full Frame Cameras.<br>

5. Tokina 16-28 F2,8…. Guys this LENS IS AMAZING!, maybe is better that the Canon Top of the Line 16-35L, for have of the price, the IQ Is wonderful, the construction is well solid, the only drawback is that we cannot put any filter on it, since the front lens is Spherical.<br>

I really recommend it… WONDERFUL lens I got.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Miguel Torres<br /><a href="http://www.matfotografia.com">www.matfotografia.com</a></p>