Canon wide angle for PJ?

[Todd Reichman]

Hello!


I'm a wedding photographer by specialty and we use only L primes at this point. For wide angle we use the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 mostly for the superior image quality. I loved using the 16-35 from a usability standpoint but it really didn't hold up next to the IQ of the primes. So I'm looking to add a new lens to shore up wider views than the 35 offers. My question is has anyone used the 16-35 v2 or 28 1.8 as well as the 24L and 35L and how do those 2 lenses hold up to the L primes. Also, has anyone checked out the 24L version 2?


Thanks! I'll be using these lenses on the 5dmk2.


- trr

[Mr Chad]

Todd:


I preferred my 10-22mm EFS (on APS-C) optically over my current 16-35L Mk1 on FF. So if you are using a Canon APS-C body for a back-up that might be a good option to try. I liked that this lens could share 77mm filters with my other L zooms.


I'm not sure if the apertures are fast enough on the EFS lens for your work though?


-Chad

[HiFiGuy1]

He said he'd be using a 5D Mk. II. Does the EF-S lens work ona FF body? I didn't think that they were compatible.


As far as the OP question about the 16-35 L Mk. II, I'd have to look it up, but IIRC Bryan though it was an improvement over the Mk. I and a very good lens. I personally have a 17-40 L, and the 16-35 Mk. II is supposed to be superior to it.

[Todd Reichman]

I borrowed a 16-35 v2 from CPS a while back and I didn't get to test it next to the version 2 but it still didn't look like it came close to the primes. I don't use cropped cameras but the Tokina 11-16 actually looks pretty impressive for an off-brand crop lens. I'm wondering if Canon is going to compete with Nikon on the 14-24?





- trr

[gofioamasado]

I own 16-35 2,8LII, and am very happy with it, far more happy than with the first version. I shoot with an 5D and a 1DsIII.
Anyway, I'd like to get even better IQ an I'm thinking in getting a Nikon 14-24 with an adapter, as in test viewed at 16-9.net appears to be a really superb and superior performace lens.

[Michael James]

..... I'm thinking in getting a Nikon 14-24 with an adapter, as in test viewed at 16-9.net appears to be a really superb and superior performace lens.






If you don't need autofocus, that adaptor is the way to go with the Nikon 14-24 on a canon.

[gofioamasado]

I rarely use AF with any lens, and never with wide angles, as most times I'm shooting on tripod, raised mirror, SR cable, time to check focus on Live View, etc...
When I shoot portraits, I'd rather prefer choosing the focus manually. That's the reason, among others, cause i switched from 100 macro to 90 TSE.
On sports photography, whick I shoot rarely, I shoot MF-AF 50%.

[Michael James]

I rarely use AF with any lens, and never with wide angles, as most times I'm shooting on tripod, raised mirror, SR cable, time to check focus on Live View, etc...


I was just mentioning that for the OP's sake. I should have specified that when I quoted you. It was really for the OP's sake.


I was considering sticking with my 5D and that adaptor and 14-24mm (when I first learned of the adaptor), but 16-9.net was in a severe production crunch and was months from delivering. I ended up getting the D3 in order to use the 14-24mm for my line of work.


Long story short. I had sold my 5D and 16-35mm f/2.8 L II combo to a local photographer and got lucky enough she wanted to get a Nikon herself months later so I bought it back from her last month. So I have that combo and the D3 and 14-24mm. The Nikon combo is sharper than Canon's. I've done extensive testing. What I don't like about the 14-24 is the inability to use filters like you can with Canon's 16-35.


Nikon's is sharper wide open, handles flare better and someday I may get that adaptor to use it on my 5D. I prefer the colors of the 5D over the D3, but that is just me. I'm not making any claims on that one... just my own preference based on my experiences.

[Todd Reichman]

Using manual focus for wedding work really isn't practical for me. I've decided to go with the new 24 1.4. The 16-35s need to be stopped down way too low to get close to wide-open prime performance.


- trr

[gofioamasado]

That's the best choice, if you cannt live without AF. But it is indeed a lot of money for just 24 mm focal range. You surely will use it a lot.
I chose the 16-35 to have a wide range of focals for a fair price and reasonable IQ+AF.
I remember film photography old times. I used to shoot with Hasselblad, even wedding works. I focused manually trusting faithfully my focus screen, viewfinder and eyes. No green light for focus confirmation was there. I guess I didn't miss a shoot. Today we have this happy green light to advise you for right focus. I cann't find a reason to sacrify IQ for AF, so I'd go for the nikon 14-24 if IQ really matters, don't mind AF, as you get focus confirmation with that adapter, and the difference in IQ is like day and night.

[Todd Reichman]

From the little testing I've done I'm not seeing the 14-24 as that much different than the new 24. Both have a different quality though so I can see why you might prefer one or the other. I'd love it if Canon came out with a 14-24 but judging Canon's other zooms I can't expect it to be any better IQ wise than the primes.


My eyes are way too bad to rely on MF - glad I came along in the age of usable AF!


- trr