gdanmitchell
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #5 · 16-35mm f2.8L Do I really need it? | |
The 16-35 is not necessarily "ideal" for landscape, depending on a few things.
If you shoot full frame it certainly can do a fine job on landscape photography, though the main advantage of this lens (its better performance at the largest apertures) is likely to not come into play if your notion of landscape includes shooting at small apertures for large DOF. If that is the case, the much less expensive 17-40 f/4 can equal it at the smaller apertures and (arguably, at least by a very small amount) potentially beat its center sharpness at those apertures.
The main advantage of the 16-35 is not its ability to do stopped down landscape work. Its main advantage (as compared to the 17-40) is to do hand held low light work at the largest apertures: f/2.8 (which only it has) and f/4 (where its corner performance is better). At f/5.6 and beyond things get more complex.
If you shoot crop, I would not get the 16-35 or the 17-40. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a better option on cropped sensor bodies in almost every way. The IQ from the EFS lens is as good or better, like the 16-35 it goes to f/2.8, and unlike either of the other lenses it has a larger focal length range and image stabilization.
Dan
hsk06 wrote:
Ok, I impulsively bought a 16-35mm f2.8L from Beach Camera before the price jumped last week.
Sadly, I haven't even opened the box yet. I've hardly taken any landscape pictures, and you can tell from my flickr page. I mean NONE.
Now someone please show me some nice pictures taken with the 16-35mm so that i can get excited, open the box.
In other words, what is the 16-35mm good for beside landscape?
Thanks in advance.
Edited on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:17 PM · View previous versions
|
