Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2013 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Deanh
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Looking for a wide zoom for a FF body.

1. Sharp.
2. Takes filters.
3. Autofocus.
4. 2.8 or faster.

What are my options?

Apr 22, 2013 at 07:51 PM

JohnBrose
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

You wont find any faster than f2.8 in a wide zoom. I had the 17-40 and have the 16-35mk2 now. The 16-35 mk2 is decent, I'm sure there are sharper lenses, but it's a good compromise.

Apr 22, 2013 at 07:58 PM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

For Canon, you pretty well described the 16-35L II.

Apr 22, 2013 at 07:59 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

If you want significantly better performance you have to remove the restriction of being able to take filters and AF, then you go and buy a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. Or if you want AF you could try the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8, which also looks very good. Otherwise the 16-35L II is as good as it get's in an UWA zoom that meets all you requirements.

Apr 22, 2013 at 08:04 PM

maxx9photo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Save money and buy Tokina 16-28. The only thing about this lens is the filter just like Nikon 14-28.

Apr 22, 2013 at 09:11 PM

TheWengler
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

You only have one option. If you want more options you have to drop one of the parameters.

Apr 22, 2013 at 09:26 PM

Deanh
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

I would like to use this lens with my Lee filters and holder, is the Canon the only AF UWA 2.8 that takes filters?

Apr 22, 2013 at 11:05 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Deanh wrote:
I would like to use this lens with my Lee filters and holder, is the Canon the only AF UWA 2.8 that takes filters?

You can get filter kits for lenses like the Nikon and Tamron, but they aren't cheap. If you want to keep your Lee filters, then yes, as we've said, 16-35 is the only lens that fits your bill. Hopefully Sigma will launch an Art series UWA zoom one day.

Apr 22, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

I've heard good things about the Tokina 16-28, and I might be wrong in this -- it seems slightly less on the IQ than the Canon. And of course, the Canon has considerably more range, 28mm to 35mm.

Anyway, the 16-35L II is the only lens that covers all your parameters.

Apr 23, 2013 at 12:08 AM

kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Deanh wrote:
I would like to use this lens with my Lee filters and holder, is the Canon the only AF UWA 2.8 that takes filters?

Yup. Not a whole lot of options in camp Canon if you want an UWA 2.8 with AF that accepts filters.

No AF --> Zeiss 21
No Filter --> Tokina

Apr 23, 2013 at 12:24 AM

saneproduction
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Tokina 16-28 - Awesome lens!

Apr 23, 2013 at 12:57 AM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Instead of going with the 16-35, I would recommend the better Canon 14/2.8 II prime lens. It takes gelatin filters in the rear side of the lens body, too. This lens is track sharp also in the corners and excellent for indoor stuff. If you really need a zoom lens in this range and more for outdoor photography, IMO the 17-40/4 is all you need.

Apr 23, 2013 at 09:17 AM

deepbluejh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

retrofocus wrote:
Instead of going with the 16-35, I would recommend the better Canon 14/2.8 II prime lens. It takes gelatin filters in the rear side of the lens body, too. This lens is track sharp also in the corners and excellent for indoor stuff. If you really need a zoom lens in this range and more for outdoor photography, IMO the 17-40/4 is all you need.

The 14/2.8 prime is not a very flexible lens. It's also expensive and too wide for many applications. I see it as an addition (not a replacement) to the 16-35/2.8.

Apr 23, 2013 at 09:28 AM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

deepbluejh wrote:
The 14/2.8 prime is not a very flexible lens. It's also expensive and too wide for many applications. I see it as an addition (not a replacement) to the 16-35/2.8.

It depends what your major usage of the lens is. For indoors, I found even 16 mm on FF often too long, 14 mm as rectlinear lens is optimal for room photography. For this reason I mainly was never interested in the 16-35 since for outdoor stuff I never need f/2.8 in this focal length range. Another con personally for me is that the 16-35 is not suitable for IR photography which I often do while the 17-40 is perfect here. If I need some longer wide angle FL for indoor photography, I grab my 35/1.4 prime lens.

Edited on Apr 23, 2013 at 09:39 AM · View previous versions

Apr 23, 2013 at 09:37 AM

ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Coming from a 17-40 which I never liked, I was surprised that I am liking the 16-35 with all the bad comments about it being no better than the 17-40 stopped down. My copy is much better than the 17-40 I owned. I also have or had the 17 and 24TSE a Zeiss 15 f2.8 and a Samyang 14.

I find I need to use f11 to get good enough corners for landscapes, but thats no problem for my tripod only style. It seems sharper at infinity as well. Never liked infinity on the 17-40.

This lens is not in the same class as my primes or 24-70 mk2 in corners and edges, but at least detail is not really blurred as with other Canon L zooms I have used.

It has good flare performance and is a great starlight landscape lens. It does have more CA than my other lenses however.

Apr 23, 2013 at 09:39 AM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

retro -- The OP clearly stated must take filters (meaning screw-in type) and f/2.8 or FASTER (not f/4).

I don't see the 14 as an alternative to the 16-35 in any way, as it is much wider angle and not able to zoom in an practical sense, either through moving feet or in cropping.

Apr 23, 2013 at 10:11 AM

OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

When you set up a four variable equation all of which must be met or maximized you leave yourself few to no choices. There are numerous ways to go wide as folks above me have pointed out. Perhaps you could describe what you plan on doing with said lens and those of who spend time shooting wide could offer other ways of doing the job.

As noted above, you seem to be describing the Canon 16-35 as nothing else ticks all of those boxes. How sharp it is depends somewhat on what you find acceptable.

Robert

Apr 23, 2013 at 10:27 AM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Gunzorro wrote:
retro -- The OP clearly stated must take filters (meaning screw-in type) and f/2.8 or FASTER (not f/4).

I don't see the 14 as an alternative to the 16-35 in any way, as it is much wider angle and not able to zoom in an practical sense, either through moving feet or in cropping.

I wanted to provide a reasonable alternative to the OP - if you don't see it as alternative, doesn't mean that it is fully out of discussion for the OP even he prefers a zoom lens. The OP didn't say that the lens needed to have screw-in filters. I clearly stated in my post above that alternatively I am using for indoors the 35/1.4 and only outdoors the 17-40.

Apr 23, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

There were reasonable alternatives mentioned, in fact more than reasonable as long as you are willing to give up a on filters. For me I'd take the Nikon over the 14L any day and live with the lack of AF. Just as good optically or damn close and far more versatile and can be found a lot cheaper.

Apr 23, 2013 at 05:55 PM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 16-35 2.8 II or???

Pixel Perfect wrote:
There were reasonable alternatives mentioned, in fact more than reasonable as long as you are willing to give up a on filters. For me I'd take the Nikon over the 14L any day and live with the lack of AF. Just as good optically or damn close and far more versatile and can be found a lot cheaper.

True - an option which I didn't try yet! Good point.

Apr 23, 2013 at 07:35 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.