16-35 2.8L or 16-35 2.8L II

[c.edwards]

Hello All,


This is not my first post, but it is under this ID. I couldn't seem to get my other account to log me in or send me a recovery password. Oh well, I am planning on purchasing the 16-35 Series of lens for my 7D and I can't decide between the 16-35 I or the II. I do like the lower cost of the Gen1 and the fact that it uses the 77mm filter size, but I am not sure if the IQ is up to snuff. The Gen 2 is nice but much more expensive and the filters are too! Has anyone had any working experience with the two and can give me a recommendation?





Thanks in advance!





Chris

[StapledPhoto]

I don

[c.edwards]

Hey Stapled, I do agree with you. I don

[neuroanatomist]

I dont really want to repurchase again.

Makes sense - although keep in mind that the better lenses (L lenses and the EF-S 17-55mm and 10-22mm are in that group) hold their value pretty well, especially if you have good timing. For example, I bought my EF-S 10-22mm during a rebate period last winter, and sold it last week (no rebates currently), so I only 'lost' about $50 - that's a pretty reasonable 'rental fee' for nearly a year of use!


I sold the 10-22mm just after I ordered a 5DII. I would have preferred a 5DIII, and will almost certainly upgrade to that when it comes (unless they fail epically and don't upgrade the AF system) - but, I wanted FF for an upcoming trip. I will also point out that I'm keeping my 7D, primarily for birds/wildlife where the speed and crop factor are a big 7D advantage. But even though I'll use the 5DII for 'general purpose' shooting, portraits, landscapes, etc., I'm also keeping my EF-S 17-55mm lens - it's just that good! I'd really recommend considering that lens instead of a FF UWA zoom for your 7D. Especially if you intend the 16-35mm as a walkaround lens, 35mm is pretty short for general use.


To your question about the 16-35mm MkI vs. MkII, while I cannot comment on the differences, have you considered the 17-40mm f/4L? Personally, I'm debating a bit between that and the 16-35 II right now. The consensus seems to be that if you can stop down a bit (e.g. landscapes on a tripod), the 17-40mm is optically similar to the 16-35mm II, and a bargain at half the cost. But, if you intend the 16-35mm as a general purpose zoom lens for your 7D, you may want the wider aperture.


Good luck with your decision, Chris!

[markcoons]

I have always defended the EF-S 17-55 as it is a great lens. But when I got my 16-35mm II I stopped using the 17-55. As good as it is the 16-35 is better, better color and better IQ. I don

[Daniel Browning]

I do like the lower cost of the Gen1 and the fact that it uses the 77mm filter size, but I am not sure if the IQ is up to snuff.

Well, it depends on what you're going to do with the photos. For posting images to the web and making small 4x6 prints (i.e. using less than 2 megapixels), the original 16-35 is up to snuff. In really tiny displays, the only noticeable difference will be the distortion, I think.


But if you plan on making medium-sized prints like 8x10, then the difference between the two will be visible.

The Gen 2 is nice but much more expensive and the filters are too!

Yes, it certainly is.

I would strongly urge you to consider the ef-s option.

I second this. Most folks just assume that the "L" lenses will be as good or better than EF-S lenses, and they are quite shocked when they learn how poor the quality is.


Are you sure you want to pay $1,500 for a lens that is much lower quality than a $450 lens? If you look at contrast and resolution:

• The 16-35 pretty low image quality.
• The 16-35 II has higher image quality than the 16-35.
• The Tamron 17-50 ($450), Sigma 18-50, and Canon 17-55 all has much higher image quality than the 16-35 II.

Photozone, DPR, and slrgear.com can specify exactly how much better the 17-55 would be.

I don't really need the sealing at this point, but I do plan to go FF in the 1-2 year future IE: 5D Mark3. I dont really want to repurchase again.

Even if you get the 16-35 II, I think you will end up repurchasing again anyway.On full frame, it's a very high quality ultra wide f/2.8 zoom.But a lot of people don't need or want such a heavy, fast ultra wide. The typical way to shoot ultra wide is at f/8 or narrower, for maximum depth of field.


For example, if you wanted the same angle of view and light collecting ability as the 16-35mm f/2.8, but on a crop camera, you would need a 10-22mm f/1.8. The only EF-S lens Canon makes like that is the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. It's 1.6-2.3 stops slower (i.e. five times less light and five times deeper DOF).


The 17-40 f/4 is much smaller, lighter, cheaper, and slower. For some folks, it's too slow and low quality to use on APS-C. But on full frame, if you stop down to f/8, the quality is amazing.


It would be a lot cheaper and give you much higher quality if you just bought two lenses: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Canon 17-40f/4. You can leave the Canon camera in the box for 1-2 years while you don't have full frame. In the mean time you'll get cheap, fast, and high quality. When you get full frame, you can literally throw the 17-50 in the trash and still have more money than if you bought the 16-35. (Though I would recommend reselling it or keeping it for a second body.)



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

I don't really need the sealing at this point, but I do plan to go FF in the 1-2 year future IE: 5D Mark3. I dont really want to repurchase again.

<div>It's kind of like buying a car when you have no gas. You'll have to push around this big old heavy thing for a few years, but when you finally do get gas, it will be great. If you buy a bicycle now, it's will be a lot lighter, cheaper, and faster than pushing a car. The downside is you'll have to repurchase later when you have gas. [] </div>
<div></div>
<div>Hope that helps.</div>

[c.edwards]

This post is what is great about this forum, you ask a question from one perspective and get answers from an entirely different one! Furthermore those perspectives tend to make a lot more since. Thanks for the responses! Now, I am a bit of a snob and I only really want to use Canon lenses.......I do really want to be able to get a shallow depth of field. Is the Tamron up to it in quality and build? Also, how wobbly is the 17-55? I was going to rent it from Lensrentals.com, but they said that they have had a high failure rate among those lenses.......Any Input?


I do like the 17-40, but I really want the shallow DOF for low light interoir shots.

[Daniel Browning]

Is the Tamron up to it in quality and build?

For image quality - yes. According to most test measurements, charts, etc., the Tamron is equal to the much more expensive Canon 17-55. For build - yes. The 17-50 is solid, well-constructed, and balances well on a 7D. Definitely doesn't feel cheap. I've banged it around and dropped it a few times and it keeps on ticking.


The Canon has several advantages, though: the autofocus is quiet, whereas the Tamron makes an annoyingly loud "BZZZZT". When I shoot anything quiet, such as weddings (during the ceremony), plays, etc., I turn off the Tamron autofocus specifically for that reason.


Canon has the Ring USM, which is very fast. I think the Tamron autofocus is just as fast, but I haven't measured it or anything. The Canon 17-55 does have FTM (Full Time Manual), whereas on the Tamron you have to flip a switch to go from auto to manual.


The Canon has I.S., of course, but if you were considering the 16-35 f/2.8, then that's not a disadvantage of the Tamron. (Tamron has a V.C. version of their 17-50, but I haven't used it and indications are that it is much softer than the non-VC Tamron.)

I was going to rent it from Lensrentals.com, but they said that they have had a high failure rate among those lenses.......Any Input?

Renting is a great idea. In the latest lensrentals.com reliability report it says "the Canon 17-55 and 10-22 EF-S lenses and the Nikon 24-70 have had dramatic changes in repair rates this yearcompared to last." The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS went from 30% to 10%. So maybe Canon fixed the problem.

I do like the 17-40, but I really want the shallow DOF for low light interoir shots.

Not only that, but wide open it's quite soft -- even softer than the kit lens. And if you stop down to f/8 for increased sharpness, then you *really* can't shoot in low light. []

[HDNitehawk]

You wont go wrong with the 16-35mm L II. I like to do big prints and my 16-35 L II has given me a lot of keepers. The larger filter is a pain, if your a person who switches filter from one lens to another you need to consider that in the price your paying for the lens. Personally I keep at least 1 filter on every lens all the time stored or not. The filter I have couldn

[Keith B]

This post is what is great about this forum, you ask a question from one perspective and get answers from an entirely different one!

Yes you got every answer but the one you were looking for. I own the 16-35II but have never owned or used the mkI so I didn't want to chime in. I figured you could have read all the comparisons and seen all the ISO charts for yourself.


This isn't the answer either but my real world experience with the 16-35II is it is very very good at 16. It is very good at 35. In between it is a little soft. I would assume it is better than the mkI. The mkII is on my highly recommended list. If price is not a huge issue get the mkII. If you are considering FF I would say get the 16-35II over the 17-55 even though I have never used the EF-S lens but I can tell you what other sites say or you could read it for yourself.


One more instance where the 16-35II would win my heart over the 17-55; I was chest deep in the Atlantic last week with waves crashing into me and spraying my 1DsII w/16-35II set up (obviously UV filter too). Afterwards, a dowsing and wiping with some distilled water and business as usual. I figured if they could do it on shark week I could too.


EDIT PS


I know the 17-55 wouldn't fit on the 1DsII. So pretend I said 7D.