# Should I add the EF 16-35 F4.0 L ?



## Hobby (Oct 30, 2019)

I sold my EOS 80D and was planning to buy a 90D.
Would it be a good idea to buy an EF 16-35 F4.0 L IS for that 90D? As a walk around lens?
Price is beneath 900€ (<1000 US$) with cashback.
I could also use that lens on my 6D.
Mostly shooting stills.

I already have an EF-s 18-135 Nano and the EF 24-70 F2.8 L.

Or should I keep my money and buy RF lenses for an EOS R in the future?


----------



## TominNJ (Oct 30, 2019)

I won’t buy any new glass that doesn’t support focus bracketing. The 16-35/4 does so in the RP camera and I assume it will work with any new bodies that include that capability. That might not be important to you.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 30, 2019)

I own the 16-35 f/4 IS L. Great lens. I would be interested in what you need, what you are trying to do with the lens? Shoot birds, no I wouldn't recommend it even on crop. As a general purpose walk around lens, it would be good. But for general purpose lenses, I would either recommend focal length range or faster glass. My favorite general purpose zoom for APS-C is the EFS 15-85. Just love that combination. It gives you an amazing range that you can just put on your camera and walk all day long. For something a bit faster, the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 is another great lens.

You mention the EOS R. If you are planning on going full frame and have already sold your 80D, why not look at the EOS-RP or EOS-R? Make the jump now. The RP with RF 24-105 is $1,899 until Nov 2 on BH. That is actually less than a 90D and 16-35 will run you. Granted these are in US, not sure of prices elsewhere.

My wife has an 80D. I have no doubt the 90D will be a great camera capable of taking great pictures. But, these are all tools, pick which is best for what you want and that will grow in the direction you want to grow.


----------



## OneSnark (Oct 30, 2019)

Ah - the conundrum.

First question: Why did you sell the 80D? What was wrong with it? 

Second question: Are you a committed optical viewfinder guy, or are you buying into the mirrorless hype? This is a key question, as the 16-35/4L is not a native lens for either of the Canon mirrorless systems. If you are thinking of mirrorless - - - buying another EF lens might not be the wisest move. What are your plans for the 6D? That is an older camera. Are you planning to keep it? The suggestion to buy an RP with the 24-105 is valid. . . but bear in mind that the number of sub-$2000 RF lenses is very limited, and none of them work on a 6D.

Regarding the lens itself. . .if you want to stick with lenses compatible with the 6D. . .then the 16-35/4L is a no-brainer choice. It's the most cost effective way to "go wide" on a full frame camera. If you are staying with EF-S (like a 90D), I would strongly consider the 10-22 EF-S to compliment the 24-70. Those lenses should pair well together.

So the 90D, MK6-II, RP, and 6D-II are all "around" the same cost. You can go any direction you want. Each path has it's drawbacks and advantages.


----------



## Hobby (Oct 30, 2019)

(@Everybody, thanks for the advice.)
Yes, in fact, there was nothing wrong with the 80D. I just sold it. Going with the flow of having something new, I guess... (silly). And also a sort of Christmas present for my wife. She uses the x0D.
We are exchanging the lenses.
I will keep my 6D. Forever. The image quality is so good with my 24-70 F2.8. I always find it much better (creamy) than my 80D.
I was looking for a wider lens for the 6D, indoor, and for city trips, buildings, and in the same time usable for the 90D.
Focus bracketing is no issue for me. Allways optical viewfinder. I have a G5Xii, but I find it very hard to get used to the EVF. And it is so small and it is to light. I like to have a kilogram in my hands...

I am dreaming of an EOS R (not RP) with the RF 24-105, to have better image quality (perhaps?). But to be honest, RF is so expensive... insane... it's just a hobby.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 30, 2019)

The 16-35mm f/4L IS is one of Canon's best bargains ever, a truly sharp lens with fast AF and excellent IQ. The distortion is something you'd have to deal with at 16mm, but not in every type of photo, and correct composing can reduce the effect. For the price, nothing on the market comes close to the overall quality--including IQ!

Regarding body choice, which seems to have become part of the thread too...I have the 80D and the R. For action, I'd choose the 80D over the R, but for portraits and landscape, I'd go with the R. Specs suggest that AF on the 90D will be significantly better than the 80D you sold. But, full disclosure, I also have a 5DIV, and I'd take that over any of them for action and landscape. Portraits, R for the win!

(I do use the 80D for family fun, for longer hikes where I might get some good macro opportunities--and just to have a robust smaller body with me at all times. I mostly keep the ef-s 35mm f/2.8 IS Macro on it, as it is so versatile, good for portraits, macro, and occasional landscape. And it is so light and tiny, just makes the 80D a convenient, hassle-free camera to have along.)

Maybe save up for a while, patiently hanging in there with your 6D producing beautiful images, to get a better FF body. In my opinion, you can't go wrong with the 16-35 f/4L IS. I've thought several times about getting something faster, but then I just go out and use this svelte little masterpiece, enjoying its low weight, build quality, and IQ. Plus, not having to spend more for an extra stop of light is a good feeling too!

You have interesting choices ahead of you!


----------



## Wm (Dec 12, 2019)

Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place to post this.... Not sure if this needs a new post for me or not as i have the same question.... Moderator please move if necessary - not meant to hijack thread.

So i have been looking for a wide angle lens, thinking mostly for landscaping but also interested for architecture and interiors. I am new and still learning and confused easily - a bad combination with all the choices available. I know everyone has their own fav but am looking for some input. I currently have EF 24-105 4L IS II USM, EF 50 1.4 and EF 70-300 4-5.6 IS II USM.... Doesnt have to be Canon, but would like to keep all the same. That being said I have read good things re: Sigma lens and being a little confused then adding another brand makes it more challenging. I dont have a budget per se, but, am trying to be reasonable and a little practical so i dont think i need to drop a ton being non-professional and amateur. BUT am looking for good quality pictures - providing i have all the settings correct before pressing the button. 

I have been looking at Canon EF 11-24 F4 USM and EF 16-35 2.8 III USM. Both of these are more than want id like to spend and have a hard time justifying the $ and around 2700 and 1900 dollars. I do like the fact very much of being 11 & 16 mm, 11 maybe more so bc i am interested in the wide angle part. I have also been reading about possible distortion, if i could even notice it who knows, but also that if there is some it can be reduced in PS.... Right?

I have a friend who is a professional shooter and he highly recommends lens talked about here, 16-35 f4 L series. I like that price better and the IS feature. But dont know if im being silly bc im not on a full frame and think i am loosing the wide part bc of the crop sensor?

I then read in a review that on an APS-C this turns into a "normal" lens and that its "better" to stick with APS-C lens and camera combo's and buying an L series is a waste of the $ and the artice goes on the recommend the Canon 10-18 EF-S.

One of my thoughts on getting L series is for better quality and one day if i do get a full frame i already have the lens. That said, if that happens its probably a long ways off....

THOUGHTS PLEASE..... Tks very much.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2019)

Get the 16-35 f4 IS, it is the best value Canon L lens out there (with the 100L Macro close behind). The 11-24 is very big, heavy, expensive and comparatively limited in use, the 16-35 f2.8 is unnecessary unless you critically* need* f2.8, which few people do now camera ISO is so much better than years ago.

The 16-35 f4 IS is the perfect ultra wide angle lens, small and light enough to actually take with you, a great feature set with modest filter sizes, IS, etc etc and it is stunningly sharp for critical corner to corner landscape images.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Dec 12, 2019)

Hobby said:


> I sold my EOS 80D and was planning to buy a 90D.
> Would it be a good idea to buy an EF 16-35 F4.0 L IS for that 90D? As a walk around lens?
> Price is beneath 900€ (<1000 US$) with cashback.
> I could also use that lens on my 6D.
> ...


I would also have a look on the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4. Nearly the same focal range. Also very sharp, weather sealed and has got good reviews. It is lighter and much cheaper. Until the end of this year there is a 50€ instant discount from Tamron (40 years anniversary) on the lens. Yes it has no IS, but the f2.8 will compensate for that. If you are interested in Astro photgraphy the Coma is also very well controlled but the vignetting is quite heavy at f2.8. But vignetting is better to remove in post than bad coma.

I got my Tamron 17-35 these days for just 380€. The price/value ratio is really hard to beat.

Frank


----------



## Wm (Dec 13, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Get the 16-35 f4 IS, it is the best value Canon L lens out there (with the 100L Macro close behind). The 11-24 is very big, heavy, expensive and comparatively limited in use, the 16-35 f2.8 is unnecessary unless you critically* need* f2.8, which few people do now camera ISO is so much better than years ago.
> 
> The 16-35 f4 IS is the perfect ultra wide angle lens, small and light enough to actually take with you, a great feature set with modest filter sizes, IS, etc etc and it is stunningly sharp for critical corner to corner landscape images.


Tks for the input. I’m guessing you included the 100L Macro as a value reference only ?? As I was thinking of a wide angle.....


----------



## Wm (Dec 13, 2019)

Photorex said:


> I would also have a look on the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4. Nearly the same focal range. Also very sharp, weather sealed and has got good reviews. It is lighter and much cheaper. Until the end of this year there is a 50€ instant discount from Tamron (40 years anniversary) on the lens. Yes it has no IS, but the f2.8 will compensate for that. If you are interested in Astro photgraphy the Coma is also very well controlled but the vignetting is quite heavy at f2.8. But vignetting is better to remove in post than bad coma.
> 
> I got my Tamron 17-35 these days for just 380€. The price/value ratio is really hard to beat.
> 
> Frank


Looks compelling. I like that the canon is 1 lb. WT. LESS than the Tamron though. Tamron has more elements and is 2.8 but not sure if that’s a big deal for me as I dont understand all the intricacies yet.... Also b&h and adorama both show the Tamron WITH IS or VC as they call it - right??


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2019)

Wm said:


> Tks for the input. I’m guessing you included the 100L Macro as a value reference only ?? As I was thinking of a wide angle.....


That is correct.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 13, 2019)

Wm said:


> Looks compelling. I like that the canon is 1 lb. WT. LESS than the Tamron though. Tamron has more elements and is 2.8 but not sure if that’s a big deal for me as I dont understand all the intricacies yet.... Also b&h and adorama both show the Tamron WITH IS or VC as they call it - right??


I'd think there may be some confusion here. I believe the Tamron you are talking about is the Tamrom 15-30 f/2.8 VC. That is a different - bigger and heavier - lens than the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 which was mentioned in an earlier post.


----------



## Wm (Dec 13, 2019)

jd7 said:


> I'd think there may be some confusion here. I believe the Tamron you are talking about is the Tamrom 15-30 f/2.8 VC. That is a different - bigger and heavier - lens than the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 which was mentioned in an earlier post.


Yes, you are correct. I was looking at the wrong Tamron..... Sorry for the mix up. Makes it more compelling now....


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 13, 2019)

Hobby said:


> ...
> Or should I keep my money and buy RF lenses for an EOS R in the future?


If you're planning to get into EOS R system soon I wouldn't spend much on EF lenses.
If you're planning to keep EOS/EF system for several years I'd go for that EF gem.

Personally the 35 mm on the long end would be too short for me on APS-C. I've tried the 17-40L on APS-C and didn't like it for that reason, even with 40 mm.


----------



## Wm (Dec 13, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Personally the 35 mm on the long end would be too short for me on APS-C. I've tried the 17-40L on APS-C and didn't like it for that reason, even with 40 mm.


what do you prefer?


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 14, 2019)

Wm said:


> what do you prefer?


As I mostly shoot FF I am really fine with my 24-105/4. An equivalent on APS-C would mean a 15 - 65 mm lens.
As there is no such Canon lens I use different zooms when I take my 200D with me, depending on the situation that I'd expect.
But for travelling light and small I use the two pancake primes togehter with the 85/1.8. Not so convenient, but better aperture with f/2.8 and f/1.8.

Depending on what the OP Hobby is shooting and if FF might become a future choice, an EF 16-35/4, an EF-S 15-85mm or an EF-S 17-55/2.8 might be an interesting option.
As the 24-70/2.8 is already in his kit, the 16-35 will give some more WA together with IS. Not bad, if 16 mm are wide enough.


----------



## Wm (Dec 16, 2019)

so i went and looked at the canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 and the EF 16-35 F4L IS and was conflicted as ever. I have APS-C and i prefer the 10mm for wider shots but like the quality and FF capability of the 16-35. Maybe splitting hairs and driving me nuts, so i just went with the 16-35. If its not wide enough for what im expecting, the other is not terribly expensive so maybe ill grab one later too. Now waiting for Santa to deliver it!


----------



## Hobby (Dec 16, 2019)

I have my (perpetual) 6D with a 24-70 2.8 L and the Black Friday Claus brought me a M100 for 249,- (sorry, I could not resist) and I can use that second little body with an adapted EF-S 10-22. I am very happy now (that M100 is good) and first I will practice with these. And that's it. I keep on dreaming of an R and a 24-105 and perhaps a 16-35. But that will be the Claus of 2025, considering the price of RF lenses. Perhaps that's professional gear, R and RF, and not for me, we'll see.


----------



## Wm (Dec 16, 2019)

Tks


----------

