Upgrade Path

[Busted Knuckles]

Thanks everyone. I've jumped on the $1,899 deal for the 70-200 mm f/2.8. Concerns about its size, weight and if it is really the best option for me linger a bit, but I'll evaluate it over the next couple of weeks. I'll pick it up Friday. And while I am likely no longer in the market for a new lens, feel free to mention some of these older manual focus lenses that are well liked. I know nothing about older lenses and if they are inexpensive enough, I may give one a try. Especially for landscapes.

I have the 2x as well and I think this is my favorite lens. Yea it is heavy, but you get used to it - I doubt you will regret it.

[HDNitehawk]

You will like this lens.

I think the biggest advantage of this lens over the 100-400mm is the exceptional IQ between 100-200mm.

If you use the 2x III with it let me know how you think it compares to the 100-400mm at 400.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Guys!

If you use the 2x III with it let me know how you think it compares to the 100-400mm at 400.

Will do. I am going to order the 2x TC in separately in a week or two once I check out the lens.

[neuroanatomist]

Enjoy! It's my second most-used lens...

[Kayaker72]

A quick update and then my current questions. I am absolutely enjoying the 70-200 II. I am using it all the time. The weight really doesn't bother me. I have heard a comment or two about the size. It definitely stands out, but, more important, it does not seem to cause people to act unnaturally. At least, not any more so than with another lens on my 5DIII.

So, for those of you that have followed my upgrade path. I had no luck with the 24-70 II. I continue to read about issues so I am going to hold off on that lens for awhile longer. I flirted with a sale on the 500 mm f/4. But that flirtation ended after adding up everything I would want to go along with it and checking that amount against my budget

So, I've turned my attention to enhancing my kit with a dedicated "landscape" lens. I thought that would be easy. First complication I ran into: the 24-105, which I own, is already Bryan's #1 rated landscape lens. And looking at different charts, I can see why. It isn't the "best" but it is consistently good from f/5.6 to f/11 over a wide focal range. So I started thinking about types of shots that I currently can not make and came up with three categories that, of course, would result in 2-3 different lenses: 1) Tilt Shift (TSE 24 f/3.5 II). In addition to being perhaps the sharpest wide angle lens corner to corner, I've been very interested in correcting for perspective distortion in a variety of my shots, and experimenting with different focal plans. 2) A fast prime a little for a little thinner DoF and low light shooting but primarily for nightscapes/milky way shots (Canon 24 f/1.4, Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 or 25 mm f/2); and 3) a UWA lens (Canon 16-35 or 17-40). While 24 mm is typically wide enough for me, it occasionally isn't and I have recently booked a trip that includes half a day touring slot canyons in Arizona, where it will be needed (or course, I could rent for this one trip).

To complete my kit, I have started leaning toward the EF 16-35 II. Potentially, it could be used for both UWA and nightscape shots. But, I have rarely seen such divergent analysis results from review sites for any lens and you don't have to search too far to find a number of people spending a lot of time complaining about it's soft edges, coma, and general lack of sharpness. It is almost as disparaged as the 24-105....

So, my question to those of you that have the EF 16-35 II....is it really that bad? Or is it actually a really good UWA zoom and at least a pretty good lens for nightscapes/milky way shots?

Thanks in advance.....

[peety3]

So, my question to those of you that have the EF 16-35 II....is it really that bad? Or is it actually a really good UWA zoom and at least a pretty good lens for nightscapes/milky way shots?

We've owned a 16-35II for about five years, and a EF-S 10-22 for about two years. Now that we're moving to FF (she has a 5D3, I have two 1Dx), the 10-22 is on loan to my dad, the 16-35 is in my bag, and the 14/2.8 is in her bag, but honestly I "steal" the 14/2.8 whenever she's not using it because it's got a nice magic to it. That said, I'm looking to get into more sports photography, and while shooting a HS girls basketball game Friday night, the 16-35 was a fun alternative to the 24-70/2.8 (alongside the 70-200/2.8IS) and the zoom versatility was very useful. In prep for tonight's game, I've decided to put the 14/2.8 on my "old" 1D3 as a floor remote, partly to overcome crop factor and partly to keep zoom functionality available to me.

If someone asked me for advice, I think I'd tell them to either go big to get the 14/2.8, go small and save their pennies with the 17-40/4, or go balls to the wall with the Zeiss 15.

[NFLD Stephen]

To complete my kit, I have started leaning toward the EF 16-35 II. Potentially, it could be used for both UWA and nightscape shots. But, I have rarely seen such divergent analysis results from review sites for any lens and you don't have to search too far to find a number of people spending a lot of time complaining about it's soft edges, coma, and general lack of sharpness. It is almost as disparaged as the 24-105....

So, my question to those of you that have the EF 16-35 II....is it really that bad? Or is it actually a really good UWA zoom and at least a pretty good lens for nightscapes/milky way shots?

Brant;

I recently went through a similar search and ended up with the 16-35 II. I strongly considered the 17-40 as well, but settled on the 16-35 II primarily for the faster f2.8 vs f4. Partly this was just for general lower light use (I take this when travelling so personally don't want to take several primes), but I was also hoping this could double for nightscapes (haven't done many, but interested to try more).

After having this lens for a few months (including one month of nonstop travel), I have to say I'm quite pleased. Overall image quality is excellent, but being a UWA I really need to watch for the perspective distortion at the wide end. Admittedly, most of my usage is at around f8 so I could do with the 17-40 most of the time, but I like the option of f2.8 when I need it. Question is whether that alone is worth the money...

As for your specific question on nightscapes, I've tried a few night shots and there is noticeable coma wide open at the edges when viewed at 100%. Not too bad if viewing smaller and it decreases when stopped down (pretty much unnoticeable by f5.6), but that somewhat decreases it's usefulness for milkyway and nightscape shots. Here is a quick example at f2.8 (note that the focus was off a bit for this shot). View at 100% on flickr to see the coma effect on the stars, particularly in the upper right.



kauai_148 by NFLD Stephen, on Flickr

Hope this helps. But in any case, I don't think there is a wrong choice with the lenses you are debating.

Stephen

[Haydn1971]

Re the 16-35 - I've had mine over a year and previously had a 10-22 - I love it, I don't worry about the softness that people go on about.

My mistake in retrospect was to buy the 16-35 before I got the 24-70 II - a lens that blows me away - looking again, I'd get a 14/15mm prime either Canon or Zeiss

Other than that, still love my 135L but what next ? I'd probably be looking at adding a 70-200 2.8 IS II and a 8-15mm fisheye - I'd love something longer than my 70-300L but a 500/600 is probably many years away for me.

What else ? A second body perhaps. ?

[Joel Eade]

I suspect you would love the 16-35mm II for landscapes....my son-in-law has one and I have used it and it is very nice. Landscapes look great to me but I am not a pixel peeper. I have read that the coma effect is a problem for astro-photography but I have no experience there. I have used it for indoor shots at family events too....it functions quite well as a general UWA zoom but not as useful as the 24-70mm f2.8 in that regard (I understand you are not considering it now but that focal length range is really nice and it goes so well with your 70-200 too)

I do own a 17-40 and a 35 f/1.4 both of which I really like. I have no complaints with the 17-40 on landscapes but I am sure the 16-35 has slightly better IQ especially away from center. I bought the 17-40 because of the cost differential and I did not think I needed f/2.8 For indoor/lower light events I crank up my 1DX ISO or add some fill flash. Currently I do not do any astrophotography.

I think the Canon 24mm f/1.4 or 14mm f/2.8 or Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 would be the best (and most expensive) for starscapes as the 35 is not wide enough.

You could try some stitched-panos with your 70-200 too, you might be pleasantly surprised.

[conropl]

Brant:

For milkyway shots - the wider the lens, the longer the exposure you can use before you start seeing star movement. The rule of thumb for the maximum shutter speed to produce sharp pinpoint stars is: Tv(max) = 500/(Focal Length). For example, at 16mm, the max shutter speed is around 31 seconds which is probably do-able at f/2.8, but now you are wide open with the 16-35mm where the lens is not at its best. For a 24mm lens, the max shutter speed would be 21 seconds which I can typically do at f/1.8 - f/2 with my 24mm f/1.4L and it is not wide open (good thing). I guess my point is: If you are going to use a lens that can only get to f/2.8, then it had better be pretty wide, and it should be good wide open (rokion 14mm f/2.8 seems to hold some good reguard wide open).

Not living in the land of great mountain views and other large vistas, I find 24mm on full frame to be pretty wide; and in many cases, to wide. I thought about the 16-35mm, but for the landscapes I shoot I think it would be too wide. I would like it for the occasional need of an ultra wide, but it just would not get used enough. And I still like my 24-105mm... in fact, I like it even more with the FF. I have actually been thinking about the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art lens. It would be a pretty good focal length for me and it is good wide open... so I could get to the 15 second max shutter speed wide open for milkyway shots.

Having said all that... I have seen a lot of really great shots with the 16-35mm. I am not sure you go to wrong picking one up.

Pat