EF 16-35mm f 2.8L II USM

[winc240]

Hi,

I'm after some opinions on purchasing this lens. I'm after a lens to be a landscape & general walk around. I had been using my kit lens but it recently died so I've been pushed into upgrading sooner than expected. I will be using it on a 450D and I will eventually upgrade to the 7D, so it won't be on a FF. I've read great reviews from people using it on a crop body but just need that extra convincing that it would be the right choice, it's certainly not cheap.

Thanks

[gw.toad]

I have Nikons [D300 crop body] 16-35mm F4....I use mine all the time...Landscapes, portraits and as a walk around lens

[KeeFy]

Please consider the 17-55 IS instead of the 16-35.

Both 2.8 one has IS one doesn't. Image quality is about the same. Price is almost double. If you're not going FF the 16-35 is just a flash bit of gear that strokes your ego with that little red ring. The same price of the 16-35 you can get a 17-55 + a 10-22 or a 11-16 2.8 tokina. 17-55 is really the all round best walk around lens for a crop sensor with L quality glass.

[Danster]

The 16-35mm does have good edge to edge sharpness, however you will not see the benefit of it on a crop sensor. As a landscape lens, I'd recommend the 17-40mm which has outstanding colour and contrast and is easier on the wallet. I tend to shoot my landscapes on f8 to f11 with hyperfocal. You'll find that when shooting landscapes, you'll be busy trying to prevent light from entering the lens with ND filters to slow the shutter down.

Recommend that you get the 17-40mm and invest in filters and a quality tripod with the savings instead of a 16-35mm, but hey its your money so you decide if you should listen to your heart or your head.

[dulvariprestige]

I'll agree with Keefy, if you're prepared to spend that kind of money, go for the 17-55 and either the 10-22 or 11-16, I'm currently using the 17-55 and 11-16 on a 7d, and they're both excellent lenses.

Danster I think you'll find that you will see the benefit of using a FF designed lens like the 16-35 on a crop sensored body, as you're using more of the center of the lens than the edges.

[winc240]

Thanks for the input so far. I have considered the 17-55 but was worried when I was reading a lot of users complaining of dust. Is this something I should be concerned about or it's not really a worry?

[KeeFy]

Don't worry about dust. I've brought my 17-55 to a rally, trekking in the forest, into the rain, out in a snowstorm, bla bla bla.. It's not weather sealed and dust was kicked all over it when the cars went past when shooting the rally. The lens is still pretty clean. There are a few specs of dust here and there but it does not degrade picture quality anyway (unless it's really foggy and dirty) and people who obsess (IMO) about dust in their lens should stop worrying and start shooting

[Wobbles]

+1 for the EF-S 17-55IS I loved mine when shooting with my 50D's. In particular miss IS in that focal range since changing to the 1D. I had mine for a number of years used in all sorts of conditions, back of open 4WD on dusty African trails etc. with no dust problems, just put a good quality UV filter on it if you want a bit of extra protection. Didn't have the build quality of an L but certainly had as good if not better optics.

The 17-55 is cheaper, wider useful range, "common" 77mm filter size (16-35 is unique 82mm) so you can share a CPL with say a 70-200 2.8L, also great for portraits and the excellent IS.

Just a bit of trivia.. do you realise that the 16-35L or 17-55IS both weigh almost as much as your 450D + kit lens! That can take some getting used to, suggest you get a batterygrip to help balance the combo. Won't be quite as noticeable if/when you upgrade to 7D.

Cheers
John

[winc240]

Thank you, looks like the 17-55 2.8 is the better choice. As for weight I've had the 24 1.4L on this body before & agree that getting a batterygrip would be good to balance it out.