# Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?



## sbadaeagle (Oct 26, 2013)

Hi i'm John Charles and this's my first post here.
Well I've seen the 16-35 f/2.8 in a promotion but i read here some time ago that soon Canon will produce the 14-24 f/2.8 so my doubt is: buying the rebated 16-35 or waiting for the new lens. Of course if the new lens will be released in more than one year and it will cost twice the actual 16-35 i'll take the 16-35.
thanks


----------



## No Mayo (Oct 26, 2013)

Welcome John,
I have the 16-35II and would make the tired old argument that if you need a flexible ultra-wide now, then this is the only game in town. I also use the 14 2.8II (really good, really wide, but not flexible like the zoom), 24 3.5II tilt shift (awesome, but lack of auto focus makes it too slow for many subjects), 35 1.4 (love this one! but again no flexibility of focal length). I would recommend that you purchase the 16-35II. Who knows when a 14-24 will make it to market and how long it will be before the price comes down after that.


----------



## Menace (Oct 27, 2013)

No Mayo said:


> Welcome John,
> I have the 16-35II and would make the tired old argument that if you need a flexible ultra-wide now, then this is the only game in town. I also use the 14 2.8II (really good, really wide, but not flexible like the zoom), 24 3.5II tilt shift (awesome, but lack of auto focus makes it too slow for many subjects), 35 1.4 (love this one! but again no flexibility of focal length). I would recommend that you purchase the 16-35II. Who knows when a 14-24 will make it to market and how long it will be before the price comes down after that.



+1

Get the currently available 16-35 and enjoy shooting rather than wait for a lens that may not be available for a long time if at all.


----------



## Ricku (Oct 27, 2013)

It entirely depends on what you want to shoot. If center sharpness is all that matters, then the 16-35 II will probably make you happy. But if you shoot landscapes, architecture, or other stuff where corner sharpness actually matters, then don't even think about the 16-35. It's a terrible lens in this regard, and doesn't even deserve the L-badge.

Go for a couple of primes instead. I highly recommend the Zeiss 21 and the ultra cheap but also ultra sharp Samyang 14mm.

I have no idea why it's taking Canon so darn long to bring out a decent UWA-zoom, but I really hope that the 14-24L is on the way. There is also rumors about a 16-50L. Both of these should have significantly better sharpness than the 16-35II and 17-40L.


----------



## Vossie (Oct 27, 2013)

<quote from http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/>

This lens is a staple for photojournalists and wedding photographers. The fast aperture, great optics, and versatility of a zoom help them create compelling images in the tightest of environments. In a completely arbitrary collection of data, someone took a look at the EXIF information of all the cameras and all the lenses used by Reuters photographers in their “Best photos of the year 2012″ the Canon 16-35mm was, by far, the most used lens in these images. You can draw your own conclusions from this though: http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/

</quote>

So yes, it's still time for this lens.


----------



## Ricku (Oct 27, 2013)

^ Another biased answer with links to biased sources. Not everyone is a photojournalist or interested in event photography.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2013)

I have absolutely no hope for any new L, and have come to terms with that waiting is pointless. I focus on something else like enjoying the Sigma releases and the L's will come when they come. I'm done waiting for a new 35 L and proper 50 from Canon. 

I mean, 3-4 months to wait for the new firmware for the 1dx?


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 27, 2013)

sbadaeagle said:


> Of course if the new lens will be released in more than one year and it will cost twice the actual 16-35 i'll take the 16-35.
> thanks



You'd be correct about the 14-24L's starting price there, and for the time frame there is no telling other than Canon currently is extremely slow at releasing L lenses (updates). Rumors, patents or even test lenses don't mean anything concerning an actual market release... so if you aren't desperate for 14mm or corner(!) sharpness wide open get the 16-35L2.



Viggo said:


> I mean, 3-4 months to wait for the new firmware for the 1dx?



In fairness to Canon, a "real" firmware feature update esp. for the pro 1dx really needs to be bullet-proof, imagine the outcry if this would break the af tracking because they didn't test it enough...


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> sbadaeagle said:
> 
> 
> > Of course if the new lens will be released in more than one year and it will cost twice the actual 16-35 i'll take the 16-35.
> ...



An easy fix, test before telling everyone.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 27, 2013)

Viggo said:


> An easy fix, test before telling everyone.



It seems it's impossible to make everyone happy - note the cries for "at least give us a development announcement" for the 14-24L and other lenses/eos on CR


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2013)

Lol, that might be true, but as I said, I have stopped waiting and just enjoy other releases. I like the A7 and the Siggys.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 27, 2013)

I actually found the 16-35 II very good. Wide open for centre sharpness and stop down to f11 for corners.

Most people who states that the 16-35 II is not sharp in the borders / corner does not know the fact, it has very pronounced field curvature at 16mm. Try to manually focus to the infinity mark, stop down to f11 and shoot a 
landscape photo, you will find that the sharpness across the frame is actually very good.

There is about 2% area from the picture corners (and I mean the dead corners) that is a bit less sharp at 100%. The borders are totally sharp. If you are so obsessive about sharpness in the picture corner, then forget it and get the Nikon 14-24 and adapter.

Overall the 16-35 II's build, AF speed, ability to take filters all makes a very versatile event/landscape lens.

Take a look at my flickr account for landscapes shot using 16mm f11


----------



## amesbah (Oct 27, 2013)

Hopefully this is a useful perspective that has repeated a couple of times for me. The most recent, about six months ago, I sold a 1 year old 24-70L for £20 more than I paid for it new - all because the replacement version was so much more expensive. Unlike other tech, new L gear does not undercut it predecessors. It'll cost you very little to own if you look after the gear...

I bought a 16-35 II with the money and whilst I'm confident I'll lose very little if I do decide to trade up, I have to say the 35 reach makes me doubt how much I'd personally benefit more from a 12-24.

Ade


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

i have a very good 17-40mm. i compared it to 16-35mm II lenses from friends.
i was lucky, my sample is realy sharp for a 17-40mm.

for me the additional cost of the 16-35mm was not worth it.
it doesn´t pay out in image quality. 

i use the 17-40mm mostly for landscapes and at the wide end.
i don´t need the lens to be f2.8.

the day a really good canon 14(12)-24mm lens comes out i will sell the 17-40 mm.
i rarely use it above 28mm.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

Ricku said:


> But if you shoot landscapes, architecture, or other stuff where corner sharpness actually matters, then don't even think about the 16-35.
> 
> Go for a couple of primes instead. I highly recommend the Zeiss 21 and the ultra cheap but also ultra sharp Samyang 14mm.



well... as long as you don´t do architectural stuff.
the samyang 14mm is a bad lens for that. 

the distortions are hard to correct.

i had it for 1 week and i have to fully agree with photozone:



photozone said:


> Ultra wide angle lenses often struggle to tame the amount of barrel distortion and this is also a major weakness of the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It produces a whopping 5.3% barrel distortion with a mustache-style sub-frequency. For serious architecture photography this is pretty much a no-go unless you correct the problem during post-processing (which is not easy due to the rather complex distortion characteristic). However, to be fair this is mostly a non-issue for landscape photography and that's surely a primary application for such a lens.


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 27, 2013)

I have the 14LII, sig 35 f1.4.... wow, yum, whoopee!
if you want aperture-speed and lowest distortion...they are wonderful

BUT
I kept the 16-35 II because it is also great
has more distortion but less chromatics than 14L II
sigma is a class in itself...fagetaboutit Canon

the 16-35 II really is the best, most versatile range to get that ultrawide bit included
look for a deal on a new one and add it... 

if you want the next level of quality from...14-24 or what ever ...maybe...canon brings ...someday...
I believe you would do better from the two primes....
else
get the 16-35 II....I cant let mine go....

16-35 II and a 100 macro-L in a little side-case..
and I can tackle a whole city....crushing museums, bridges, tall buildings and people on the street...
just like Godzilla

you will likely get most of your money back because others also know this

Just my ideas

TOM


----------



## sbadaeagle (Oct 27, 2013)

oops i forgot to write that my doubts are also because i take a lot of industrial photos to very big machines that the company where i work manufactures. Now i've the 10-22 but i've bought the 5D mkIII and i need to replace it.
I shoot :

10% landscape
20% travel reportage
30% event reportage
40% industrial photos

so the high distorsion of the 16-35 wouldn't be the best solution, but it seems the only one (counting also the big discount applied)


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 27, 2013)

sbadaeagle said:


> oops i forgot to write that my doubts are also because i take a lot of industrial photos to very big machines that the company where i work manufactures. Now i've the 10-22 but i've bought the 5D mkIII and i need to replace it.
> I shoot :
> 
> 10% landscape
> ...



I had the 10-22 canon and it was great
the 16-35 gives you the same picture but on a full frame....and same performance ...maybe a little better... when I switched to FF from crop I missed the 10-22 and filled that longing 
...in slightly better quality...but nearly exact view....with the 16-35 II

just sayin

TOM


----------



## twdi (Oct 29, 2013)

I'm also looking at this lens or a 17-40 for my 5DmkII.
I think for the money they must be both nice for landscapes. 

I can understand the mentioned Zeis 21 is better but you cannot compare a 1700 euro lens with a 1000 or 700 euro alternative. Everyone would expect it to be better because you pay for it.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 29, 2013)

Vossie said:


> This lens is a staple for photojournalists and wedding photographers. The fast aperture, great optics, and versatility of a zoom help them create compelling images in the tightest of environments. In a completely arbitrary collection of data, someone took a look at the EXIF information of all the cameras and all the lenses used by Reuters photographers in their “Best photos of the year 2012″ the Canon 16-35mm was, by far, the most used lens in these images. You can draw your own conclusions from this though: http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/


The Reuter story is interesting and is why I have revisited this lens to see if I put it out of use for no reason. But my conclusion has not changed. I am not happy with it on 5DIII and 1DX. But the Reuter statistics concluded that the worlds best images 2012 was primarily shot with the 16-35 combined with the 1DIV. And it might be that the 1.3x crop factor reduces some of my reservations. Unfortunately I just sold my 1DIV (was also collecting dust), so I cannot try this out myself.


----------

