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.

>>IMO<<
16-35mm is only good for indoor wide angle and low light shots (church), otherwise for landscapes you'll never need faster than f/4
that's why I got the 17-40mm f/4

on my 40D:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/808142/0#7463574

It's one of my favorite lenses, I can't wait to use it on a FF body.

anorphirith,
now that you mention Church. Yes, the wide end would made nice pics of the whole church view.
If i stay at the back of the church, shooting at 16mm, f2.8 of the whole church, do the pics have enough dof (since most of the fov is at infinity)?

I took this pic with my former combo: 1dsii+24-105 at 24mm, 1/20, f4, iso 400:

Don't have any pics available, but IMHO the 16-35 excels at indoor events on a 1.3 crop camera. That is its first line of duty for me. The fact that it can do landscapes, cityscapes and architecture as well is a plus but not a deciding factor as the 17-40 can do this equally well.

I'll put it to you this way.

Until a lens comes out that beats the holy hell out of my f/2.8 trinity, I won't be selling any of them. Of my 3 zooms, my 16-35 is my least used, but when it gets the shot, I remember why I spent 954 after tax on it used (Mk1)

Just stop being lazy and take some shots.

This may give you an idea.

anorphirith wrote:
>>IMO<<
16-35mm is only good for indoor wide angle and low light shots (church), otherwise for landscapes you'll never need faster than f/4
that's why I got the 17-40mm f/4


Unless you want to blur out a bit of the background, in which case the 2.8 REALLY helps.

Shane,
That third shot in the cornfield is a beauty. Nice eye. To the OP, I had a 17-40 and sold it planning on getting the 16-35 but haven't gotten it done yet. Two reasons the exchange, the extra stop gets you all sorts of possibilities one of which Shane has illustrated above. Second, wide angle /= landscape. It also means wider, broader view. One more millimeter of width is quite significant down on this end. I'm still looking for a used one. They are hard to find.

Robert

Thanks, OntheRez.

Beautiful work, Veroman, esp. #1

Hey, if you don't want it ;-)

This lens is on the top of my 'get next' list, especially now that I have the 7D. Need some wide glass now that I plan to sell off my 5D.

ShaneEngelking wrote:
Beautiful work, Veroman, esp. #1

Thanks. Yes, #1 is one of my all-time favorites. I used only 1 support light (continuous), a 600-watt Lowell with a gel. The rest is all ambient plus the lighting in the rooms (mostly tungsten) ... and a decent amount of post-processing of course. Camera is the 1Ds II for that one; 5D Mark 1 for the others (I think).

- Steve

ADDED: Nope ... third one is 1Ds II as well.

veroman wrote:
ShaneEngelking wrote:
Beautiful work, Veroman, esp. #1

Thanks. Yes, #1 is one of my all-time favorites. I used only 1 support light (continuous), a 600-watt Lowell with a gel. The rest is all ambient plus the lighting in the rooms (mostly tungsten) ... and a decent amount of post-processing of course. Camera is the 1Ds II for that one; 5D Mark 1 for the others (I think).

- Steve

ADDED: Nope ... third one is 1Ds II as well.


Thanks for the info.

16-35 is on my list also. You needed to correct for lens distortion on these didn't you?

veroman wrote:
ShaneEngelking wrote:
Beautiful work, Veroman, esp. #1

Thanks. Yes, #1 is one of my all-time favorites. I used only 1 support light (continuous), a 600-watt Lowell with a gel. The rest is all ambient plus the lighting in the rooms (mostly tungsten) ... and a decent amount of post-processing of course. Camera is the 1Ds II for that one; 5D Mark 1 for the others (I think).

- Steve

ADDED: Nope ... third one is 1Ds II as well.

tell wrote:
16-35 is on my list also. You needed to correct for lens distortion on these didn't you?

If you're referring to my images, no. My copy has very low distortion. It also went through Canon's service department for critical adjusting and calibration at one point. When it came back to me it was like a new, different, better lens than I had before sending it in. Really ... night and day difference. They did a great job (Jamesburg, NJ facility).

The only lens in my arsenal that I have to seriously correct for barrel distortion is my 24-105. When I use it for interior work (which I often do), I generally don't shoot it any wider than 35-40mm.

- Steve

No. You don't need it. Send it to me and I'll properly dispose of it.

Some examples using my dad's 16-35:

Wow. I'm amazed at the lack of distortion. The verticals are just about perfectly straight from edge to edge. The little bit of tilt there is looks natural. Thanks for sharing.
Tell

veroman wrote:
tell wrote:
16-35 is on my list also. You needed to correct for lens distortion on these didn't you?

If you're referring to my images, no. My copy has very low distortion. It also went through Canon's service department for critical adjusting and calibration at one point. When it came back to me it was like a new, different, better lens than I had before sending it in. Really ... night and day difference. They did a great job (Jamesburg, NJ facility).

The only lens in my arsenal that I have to seriously correct for barrel distortion is my 24-105. When I use it for interior work (which I often do), I generally don't shoot it any wider than 35-40mm.

- Steve