Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of retrofocus's message #11504540 « 16-35 2.8 II or??? »

  

retrofocus
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: 16-35 2.8 II or???


deepbluejh wrote:
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.


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.



Apr 23, 2013 at 02:37 PM



  Previous versions of retrofocus's message #11504540 « 16-35 2.8 II or??? »