A&P Canon Crew.....come in here!!! 16-35 L glass

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by TomDlgns, Jul 22, 2008.

  1. TomDlgns

    TomDlgns OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    61,008
    Likes Received:
    354
  2. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,134
    Likes Received:
    90
    Location:
    east coast
    I've got the mk 1 version. It's a little soft wide open but otherwise I love it.
     
  3. Girth

    Girth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    71,430
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    Houston
    Its L, its made by GODs. :hsugh:

    Gotta be good.

    On a serious note, my friend has one and likes it a lot. Don't know how much he uses it though.
     
  4. isaac86hatch

    isaac86hatch This thread sucks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    It's gold man. 16-35, 50 1.2 and 70-200 2.8 L is a damn good bag.
     
  5. vwpilot

    vwpilot New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have the version 2 and its a great lens. Very sharp and has great color and contrast.
     
  6. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Ditto. I thought I wouldnt like it but my fiance really wanted a wide. Now that Ive used it, it doesnt come off the camera too much.

    FWIW though, I wouldnt waste they money on it if you have a 1.6crop. Just my two cents.
     
  7. TomDlgns

    TomDlgns OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    61,008
    Likes Received:
    354

    really?

    i have a 40d.

    why wouldn't you recommend it for a crop body?
     
  8. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I just never saw much need for it on a 40D. Id rather save the money and get a 10-22.

    The cropped FOV that a 16-35 gives on a 40D is the reason I didnt think I would like it with my MkIII. Its not wide enough for really wide shots and not tight enough for anything else. You end up with a sharp lens but I just personally didnt like the FOV that a 16-35 gives on a 1.6 crop. Its all personal though. You may feel differently about it.
     
  9. TomDlgns

    TomDlgns OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    61,008
    Likes Received:
    354
    it's good information...thanks.

    the reviews on the 10-22 are nice. people are saying good things about the 10-22.
     
  10. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,811
    Likes Received:
    384
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    The best use of a 16-35 on a crop body is as a 24-70 replacement. With the crop it works out to 25-56. Buying a 16-35 as a "wide" lens if you shoot with an APS-C body is going to be a disappointment.
     
  11. TomDlgns

    TomDlgns OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    61,008
    Likes Received:
    354
    i assume the APS-C is what the 40d is.

    i want a good walk around lens. something wider than 50mm.

    i have the "nifty fifty" and a 70-200 f4 canon lens

    maybe the 10-22 would be a better choice for me.
     
  12. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    I use my 10-22 as a walkaround lens all the time :)
     
  13. wizeguy4

    wizeguy4 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Allentown, PA
    the word walkaround makes me chuckle
     
  14. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,632
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    10-22 is an awesome lens. rarely leaves my camera.
     
  15. isaac86hatch

    isaac86hatch This thread sucks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    Of course the 16-35 is f2.8 and the 10-22 is what, f3.5-4.5?
     
  16. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,632
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    si
     
  17. foobar

    foobar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Why not go for the 17-40mm which is considerably cheaper? At such wide angles generally you're taking scenic shots. Your aperture is about f/8 at the very maximum.
     
  18. TomDlgns

    TomDlgns OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    61,008
    Likes Received:
    354
    the 10-22 is better than the 17-40?

    they are both around the same price and the 17-40 is L

    then again a non L glass is at the price of L glass...so something isnt right here...

    i like 10 because it is wider than 17, but i don't know how much wider 7 mm makes.

    i also like 3.8, but that doesn't matter to me as much.
     
  19. TomDlgns

    TomDlgns OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    61,008
    Likes Received:
    354
    i know that.

    but i dont know how much alot is....
     
  20. alexromo

    alexromo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    4,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wahiawa
    what about reacharound lens :naughty:
     
  21. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,632
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    a LOT. seriously.

    from what i've read, the 10-22 has L-quality glass (it's damn sharp), but since it's an EF-S lens, canon wont' put the L ring around it (since it can't be used on their fool frame bodies).
     
  22. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    I hated my 16 35 on the 1.6x crop body. It was okay on the 1.3x crop body. It's perfect for the full frame body. For a 1.6x body, get the 10-22, as mentioned several times.
     
  23. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,811
    Likes Received:
    384
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    depends. 10-22 is an ultrawide, so depending on what you shoot it may not be the best choice for walk around. Then again it may be perfect.

    Like I said before with the 1.6x crop, the 16-35 fits into more normal zoom range of 25-56, which IMHO is much better than an ultrawide for just regular shooting. That said though, given your other glass, why don't you just get a 17-40?

    Either way, you really need to go to a camera store and check out a 10-22 and a 17-40 or 16-35 to see which suits you best. You're going to get conflicting recommendations all damn day on the internet that in the end mean nothing, because only YOU know how you'll use it.

    $1400 is an awful lot to consider spending on a lens if you aren't sure it will suit your needs.
     
  24. ThexToddster

    ThexToddster New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    20,748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Woodcrest, CA
    I'll be selling my 17-40 to fund this... once I get a 24-70 and 300 2.8
     
  25. Gvidon

    Gvidon New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,893
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I used the 16-35 on 40D and on a 5D

    Its nice to have FF, but you will still love it.
     

Share This Page