A&P Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L I USM lens

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by haikii, Aug 6, 2009.

  1. haikii

    haikii New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Theres one for sale, im thinking of picking up. Although Its specified as a I.

    tried seaarching as to the differences between I and II and failed. anyone could help me out on this area?
     
  2. haikii

    haikii New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok from what i picked up they use a 77mm lens which is a good thing i guess as later on when i buy a 70-200 i can just switch over filters easy? anything else?
     
  3. MawcDrums

    MawcDrums Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    62,962
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Zebes
    It's in the "holy trinity" of zooms, it has to be awesome...
     
  4. wizeguy4

    wizeguy4 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Allentown, PA
    2 lens that are in excess of 1000 bucks and the ability of swapping a 30 dollar filter is what seals the deal?
     
  5. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    The mk II is suppose to be a bit sharper in the corners. I have the mk I version and the corners are not sharp at all when I'm wide open. However for wedding work, I don't care about corner sharpness anyway.
     
  6. Bob Loblaw

    Bob Loblaw Guest

    What Jcolman said

    the II is slightly bigger barrel and filter (82mm)
    but yeah, if you can get the I for a good price, do it
     
  7. Bob Loblaw

    Bob Loblaw Guest

    Did you have any luck with those other lenses I linked you to on ebay?


    The guy in adelaide still has his 24-70mm 2.8L for $1500

    Maybe you can talk him down to $1400 :x:
     
  8. RoudyruffKK

    RoudyruffKK OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    55,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seal Beach, CA
    damn that's expensive for a 24-70
     
  9. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    I think that's in Aussie money.
     
  10. EWhytsell

    EWhytsell New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everything I've read suggests that version I is a very very good lens and that the II only slightly improved it. Having said that I purchased the II and love it. Its sharp even at F2.8 and can focus in near darkness.
     
  11. Gvidon

    Gvidon New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,893
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    There is one for sale on craigslist for $900
     
  12. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    16-35 mki is not sharp in the corners at all. I had one used it on 40d, 5d, and mkiiN

    didnt like it at all.

    i would get teh 16-35 II if i were a canon user still
     
  13. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I have the II.

    Like everyone has said, apparently the I is soft in the corners and the II takes an 82mm filter. Its one of my favorite lenses.
     
  14. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    oh and teh II is much more flare resistant
     
  15. haikii

    haikii New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    300 dollar filter. but no i was just stating the one fact.

    Thanks guys.

    turbodude would it be TOOOOO much hassle to ask for a picture? if it is dont worry :) im pretty convinced anyhow by your word haha.

    bob- The lens was going for 1100 but absolutely no one is interested its been relisted on ebay once already and shes dropped the price by 400 dollars or somewhat. i reakon i could just throw a offer on the side something around 850 she probably will take it if she gets no bids again.

    yehh i was ebaying that 17-35 but i didnt get it haha cause i was at uni til late that night and it finished while i was in class! hahaha burning!!!!! but i think i'll be watching out for a wide angle first off, then probably a 70-200mm.

    If i cant pick up one of these i think ill get a 24mm 2.8 i should be able to pick it up for 200-300AUS.
     
  16. Bob Loblaw

    Bob Loblaw Guest

    keep looking!

    somehow, i dont think they'll take $850aud for a 16-35 :o
     
  17. haikii

    haikii New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nahnah its an aussie chick from QLD. haha yeah she probably wont but atm its going for 1100 and NOBODYS bidding on it. even if i can get it for 900 ill be relaly happy with it hahaha.

    Im hpoing to play on her desperate ness.
     
  18. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    Here's a couple of shots with my mk I. Corner sharpness is not an issue for wedding work. For architecture work I'd use my 24L or stop the 16-35 down to f/5.6 or higher. In the first pic you can see how the edges are very soft and CA is an issue.

    [​IMG]

    For exterior work, especially when you're not shooting at 16mm, the lens is good.

    [​IMG]

    16mm. Again, the CA is an issue on the edges.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Valence

    Valence Gustav Refugee

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    12,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    :rofl:
     
  20. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Oh im not saying the lens is not capable. Ive taken some purty images with it, but the II is much better. i would save the extra bones and get the II, if i was still a canon shooter.
     
  21. haikii

    haikii New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hahaha are you subtly trying to say canon sucks everytime you say "if i was still a canon user" :p

    Thanks for that guys i was just trying to weigh it up seeing as this one is essentially half the price of a II. Thanks Colman!
     
  22. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    my mk 1 is terrible. :wtc:
     
  23. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    no not at all. Im just saying if i was to do it again i would get the mkii, lets not read too much into it. Once you use both, you will notice the difference right away. Its that noticeable.

    read this...
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=2&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

    its the reviews of the mki 16-35, then compare them to the reviews of the mkii. 90% of the reviewers cant be wrong
     

Share This Page