16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2008 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

danmitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

markdennis wrote:
One of the reasons I'm considering the upgrade is because of the MP hike in the new cameras. I'm going down the prime route as well (an expensive time) but my business still needs the zooms.

If your goal is to get a "sharper" lens than you 17-40, the 16-35 will only be so at the largest apertures. At moderate to smaller apertures they are roughly equal with perhaps a slight edge to the 17-40.

Dec 26, 2008 at 06:57 AM

Breitling65
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

It is question been asked million times already. Just search

(Yes it is 100% worse to upgrade)

Dec 26, 2008 at 06:53 PM

irieweasel
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

Well, after all this time with a 16-35 v1 that I have been very attached to, I finally decided to press the order button and compare it with a v2. I think my copy of the 16-35 v1 is quite good, so we'll see...

Dec 26, 2008 at 09:29 PM

EOSDNG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

I bought the 16-35 MKII for weddings and travel photography. Was never more satisfied. perfect lens. Forget the 17-40.

Dec 26, 2008 at 09:37 PM

molson
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

danmitchell wrote:
markdennis wrote:
One of the reasons I'm considering the upgrade is because of the MP hike in the new cameras. I'm going down the prime route as well (an expensive time) but my business still needs the zooms.

If your goal is to get a "sharper" lens than you 17-40, the 16-35 will only be so at the largest apertures. At moderate to smaller apertures they are roughly equal with perhaps a slight edge to the 17-40.

I think you'll find there is more sample variation between individual Canon lenses than there is between the various models... so image quality is more dependent on getting a good sample of the model you pick, rather than on which model you pick.

Dec 27, 2008 at 02:19 PM

danmitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

Jeffrey wrote:
Oopps! I meant 21M pixels. That was funny (and kinda stupid!). Thanks, Dan!

That's OK. I can relate. I've been using computers long enough that I can actually remember when hard drives became available, and had "huge" capacities like 5 MEGAbytes. I regularly convulse my kids by using "megabytes" instead of "gigabytes" today, as in "I'm going to get a new 700 megabyte hard drive."

Dan

Dec 27, 2008 at 06:24 PM

danmitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

Yes, "it depends."

While the all-too-common assumption is that the bigger, badder, and more expensive lens is always "better," this is a false assumption in many cases.

You really need to consider how the lens will be used. Depending on the answer to that question I could argue that either the 16-35 or the 17-40 would be best.

Similar issues are abundant in lens decisions. I could say the same about any number of frequent post subjects here and on other boards regarding to following alternatives:

24-105 or 24-70?
70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 and IS or non-IS?
300mm f/4 or f/2.8 prime plus TC versus 100-400mm zoom?
50mm f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, f/2.5 macro?
35mm f/1.4 or f/2?

And so it goes...

Dan

markdennis wrote:
Thanks for the excellent advice. 'It depends' is probably what it comes down to. I think I will look into the new 24mm as well. Maybe the zoom does not need upgrading quite yet. I guess I would like a 20mm L lens. That would be great. Still, I'll see if I can find someone to lend me a 16-35 MK II to see how it works for me. After I replace my 85 1.8 with the L MK II I may not wish to spend anymore

Thanks all.

Mark

Dec 27, 2008 at 06:29 PM

cameron12x
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

I'll throw in another reason for the need for the extra 2.8 speed: video.

For people who shoot video with the 5Kmk2 and the new 7D, this would definitely be a consideration.

Sep 29, 2009 at 04:20 PM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

danmitchell wrote:
Jeffrey wrote:
Oopps! I meant 21M pixels. That was funny (and kinda stupid!). Thanks, Dan!

That's OK. I can relate. I've been using computers long enough that I can actually remember when hard drives became available, and had "huge" capacities like 5 MEGAbytes. I regularly convulse my kids by using "megabytes" instead of "gigabytes" today, as in "I'm going to get a new 700 megabyte hard drive."

Dan

You are obviously barely older than drinking age, good sir! I vividly remember my first computer (a HP, no less!) which had 32 Kilobytes of RAM! And once I had loaded Visicalc, the user emory went down to 2 Kb! That taught one to be efficient! And yet, the productivity gain from this first computer was probably greater than that of any upgrade since...

Sep 29, 2009 at 04:31 PM

rsg_1
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · 16-35mm MK II worth upgradeing to..

Here are some at 16mm from San Juan, PR taken with a 5DMkII.

Sep 29, 2009 at 04:42 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end