# 16-35 ii on crop



## gjones5252 (Nov 8, 2012)

Was wondering if anyone else loved using their 16-35mm on their crop cameras. I used it the first time when my wife had dropped my 50mm and no longer af. I knew I loved that focal length so this was a temp way to get it. 16-35 on FF isn't super useful for portrait sessions but on crop at 56mm I have started to really enjoy it. 
Wondering if anyone else has found this useful?
Also this is kinda making me think it might be worth looking at the 24-70 which would be much high quality. But similar focal range instead of the primes I have been thinking about....


----------



## Danielle (Nov 8, 2012)

I've used it extensively on my 7D. It's a great lens and damn useful, yes. A hard working lens you don't have to baby.

However my 2 lenses consisting of a 10-22 and a zeiss 2/35 distagon more useful. But there's nothing wrong with using the 16-35 ii on crop. That lens went back to my father to his 5D3, for good reason.

I haven't used a 24-70 on my 7D so I can't comment directly. But if that range would suit you I don't see why not. Personally I'd be testing a tamron first though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> Was wondering if anyone else loved using their 16-35mm on their crop cameras.



Nope. I far preferred the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on APS-C...and furthermore, I prefer the 24-105mm on FF to the 17-55mm on APS-C.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 8, 2012)

Buying a 16-35mm II for a crop body is an excelent idea. It gives you one more reason and a bit more justification to buy a FF later.


----------



## trygved (Nov 8, 2012)

I purchased one via Amazon several months back, and found it an awkward range for a crop body.
It wasn't wide enough to justify its limited reach.

If you are comfortable with the FOV of a "26-56", then it is a fine lens.
It felt stubby to me.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 8, 2012)

PackLight said:


> Buying a 16-35mm II for a crop body is an excelent idea. It gives you one more reason and a bit more justification to buy a FF later.



and if you don't...17-55 f2.8 IS is a better lens and cheaper.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2012)

I think the only time a 16-35mm II would be preferred on APS-C is with a 7D when a weather-sealed wide-to-normal zoom is reqiured. The other reason is a PackLight suggested - if you're going to move to FF in the _very_ near future. Else, for the wide end an EF-S lens will deliver better IQ for lower cost.


----------



## Zv (Nov 8, 2012)

I haven't used that lens on a crop but I do like using my 7D as a sort of extender and getting different focal lengths and apertures. I would imagine the 16-35 II would be quite sharp, even the corners with no vignetting either! 

How about showing us some sample images?


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think the only time a 16-35mm II would be preferred on APS-C is with a 7D when a weather-sealed wide-to-normal zoom is reqiured. The other reason is a PackLight suggested - if you're going to move to FF in the _very_ near future. Else, for the wide end an EF-S lens will deliver better IQ for lower cost.



That's the main reason I got the 17-40L as my walkaround for the 7D- a weathersealed lens to complement the weathersealed body. It's slower than the 16-35 but does give you a tad more range at the long end.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 8, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > Buying a 16-35mm II for a crop body is an excelent idea. It gives you one more reason and a bit more justification to buy a FF later.
> ...



But...buying the EF-S mount lens gives you one more reason to NOT buy a FF. 

The 17-55mm would be the better choice provided you are not moving to FF.


----------



## ducdude (Nov 8, 2012)

A lot of people use the term "move to FF" here. Why not use "add FF". Keeping an APS C body instantly gives you another FOV for all of your EF glass, have a backup body, not lose money on selling the kit and you get to keep and enjoy the "EF S holly trio" (10-22, 17-55 and 60mm.......)


----------



## PackLight (Nov 8, 2012)

ducdude said:


> A lot of people use the term "move to FF" here. Why not use "add FF". Keeping an APS C body instantly gives you another FOV for all of your EF glass, have a backup body, not lose money on selling the kit and you get to keep and enjoy the "EF S holly trio" (10-22, 17-55 and 60mm.......)



It is a great theory and it might work for some people, but what I found is that my crop camera became nothing more than a loaner once I started using a FF camera.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 8, 2012)

ducdude said:


> A lot of people use the term "move to FF" here. Why not use "add FF". Keeping an APS C body instantly gives you another FOV for all of your EF glass, have a backup body, not lose money on selling the kit and you get to keep and enjoy the "EF S holly trio" (10-22, 17-55 and 60mm.......)



A lot of people don't have the money to buy a second set of lenses, so the ef-s lenses are sold help fund the move to FF. Also EF lenses are more versatile because both FF and crop bodies can use them; it's easier to carry two bodies and one set of lenses rather than two bodies and two sets of lenses. And if the crop camera is old enough (i.e. 20D), it offers no advantage due to its low resolution and MPs.


----------



## hanifshootsphotos (Nov 8, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> Was wondering if anyone else loved using their 16-35mm on their crop cameras.



I primarily shoot with a 60D and the 16-35mm II...its my favorite lens but don't tell my 135mm that - only con I noticed that at f3.2 it becomes razor sharp.


----------



## gjones5252 (Nov 8, 2012)

And to think I almost purchased the 135mm! Thy were out of stock. 
Yeah I have a apsc and FF and I love working my two cameras to combine lenses and get new focal ranges. I am glad to hear others are using this fun lens to get a fun focal range. I usually use it wide open but 3.2 sounds fun to try. Ill upload some pics when I get back home. I understand the people who are saying not a good idea but its a great UWA and I am happy to have found a second use for it!


----------



## Timothy_Bruce (Nov 8, 2012)

I also use it time to time on my 7D it is a nice non-extending weatherseald nice too use L-Lens ( Much nicer, than the 17-55 which extends by zooming and has zoom and focus rings not even near as nice  )
7D with 16-35 II is really a nice to use combo!


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 8, 2012)

ducdude said:


> A lot of people use the term "move to FF" here. Why not use "add FF". Keeping an APS C body instantly gives you another FOV for all of your EF glass, have a backup body, not lose money on selling the kit and you get to keep and enjoy the "EF S holly trio" (10-22, 17-55 and 60mm.......)



I'm with you Dude! Let's own both! I've done portrait work with my 7d using the 17-55 and my 70-200 f/2.8. I prefer the compression the 70-200 affords me on portrait work, but the 17-55 works out well, if I'm in limited space...


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think the only time a 16-35mm II would be preferred on APS-C is with a 7D when a weather-sealed wide-to-normal zoom is reqiured. The other reason is a PackLight suggested - if you're going to move to FF in the _very_ near future. Else, for the wide end an EF-S lens will deliver better IQ for lower cost.



Why is that Neuro? Are you referring to the EF-S delivering better IQ than just the 16-35mm II in particular or better than EF lenses in general on an APS-C camera like my 7D?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 8, 2012)

PackLight said:


> Buying a 16-35mm II for a crop body is an excelent idea. It gives you one more reason and a bit more justification to buy a FF later.



That is true. The 16-35 on a crop sensor will limit your standard zoom/walk-around range and not provide enough of a wide angle, so you'd be forced to go full frame :



PackLight said:


> But...buying the EF-S mount lens gives you one more reason to NOT buy a FF.



Jokes apart, the 17-55mm is one of the reasons I don't want to go FF yet, since I cannot afford f/2.8 equivalent for FF. Mind you, not because I am stuck with it, but because I really like it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> Jokes apart, the 17-55mm is one of the reasons I don't want to go FF yet, since I cannot afford f/2.8 equivalent for FF. Mind you, not because I am stuck with it, but because I really like it.



So...the f/2.8-sensitive sensitive AF point is that important to you?  Because, that's all you're giving up. The FF equivalent of the 17-55/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens. The 24-105L on FF is wider, longer, faster (in terms of DoF for same framing), and delivers overall better IQ. When bought in a FF body kit, the 24-105L is $800 - cheaper than the 17-55mm, and selling the 17-55mm used would cover the cost. Since the FF sensor delivers _at least_ 1.3-stops less ISO noise (and up to 2 stops, depending on the FF body), you can bump the ISO a stop to make up the shutter speed lost going from f/2.8 to f/4, and still have less noise. So...you're giving up only the higher precision center AF point. 

I think you need to find a new reason to put off going FF...


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 8, 2012)

i love the 16-35 II

I prefer it on APS-H sensor cameras (it gives about 21mm -48mm or something like that which is brillaint for a walk around) I always feel 24mm is a little too tight when i want to shoot wide

I have had a play with the lens on my EOS-M and it works pretty well, since i already have the lens i'll probably use it alot on the EOS-M when i want a zoom on that camera the range is still good similar to using the 24-70 on FF just not quite as wide and not quite as long but it is super sharp even wide open


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Jokes apart, the 17-55mm is one of the reasons I don't want to go FF yet, since I cannot afford f/2.8 equivalent for FF. Mind you, not because I am stuck with it, but because I really like it.
> ...



True... I think the only real reason is to save enough for the 5DIII


----------



## bigbo (Nov 11, 2012)

It`s just a matter of 1.6x body corp. You can take a photo at 35mm on FF body, and cut the photo to the size of 1/1.6, it is the same.

I`ve got the 70-300L, and tested moon shooting, both on 5DMk3 and 60D, eventhough 60D has the advantage of x1.6 zoom, but I can tell you, the detail on FF 5DMk3 is no less than 60D.

So I think there`s no need to buy a crop body for this, just cut, all the same


----------



## tphillips63 (Nov 21, 2012)

Maybe a bit off topic but since I do have this lens and a 7D, and recently bought a 5D MkIII, all I can say is, I don't use the 7D much any more.
My ideas of 'moving up' to full frame pretty much went away when I like the shots from the 5D MkIII so much better than pretty much anything I get from the 7D.

I have seen great 7D shots but to me the noise is a lot higher than the 5D MkIII, otherwise I did like the lens on both but I also like the 24-105 better even though it is 'only' f/4.

In other words, get a larger sensor, you will really like it if you can get one.


----------



## RC (Nov 21, 2012)

Replaced my 15-85 with a 16-35 II primarily for weather resistance and secondary for a constant aperture and improved distortion (15-85 is bad at 15mm). I did consider the 10-22 plus 24-105 so I would have something wide for landscapes and such. But I knew I wasn't far away from getting a FF so I held off on the 10-22.

I loved the 16-35 on a crop (and still do) even though I don't expect to use it much more on my crop now that I have a FF. The 16-35 is an excellent choice for crop when you need a weather resistance lens in that range.


----------



## candyman (Nov 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Jokes apart, the 17-55mm is one of the reasons I don't want to go FF yet, since I cannot afford f/2.8 equivalent for FF. Mind you, not because I am stuck with it, but because I really like it.
> ...






 
Thanks for the laugh. I needed one after spending 3 hours in traffic jam


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:



> I think the only time a 16-35mm II would be preferred on APS-C is with a 7D when a weather-sealed wide-to-normal zoom is reqiured. The other reason is a PackLight suggested - if you're going to move to FF in the _very_ near future. Else, for the wide end an EF-S lens will deliver better IQ for lower cost.




Yes, the ef-s 10-22 is the 16-35 equal for focal length.


----------



## Physicx (Nov 27, 2012)

the 16-35 II is no comparison with the 24-70. It is just not a very good lens relative wise. The image isnt sharp, no where close to the 24-70, even cropped. You use the 26-35II for what it is...ie it is the only thing available for a wide angle zoom Full frame at 2.8. I like it but the image quality is just not relatively good. Best thing is still go FF and take the 24-70L. But it is a bit heavy and not really a walk about lens.


----------



## gjones5252 (Nov 28, 2012)

Here are the promised samples. I know not everyone likes it but so far i really like it. It a good combo to work with for me until i get a 50mm.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 1, 2012)

I haven't had any negative feelings about images with my ef-s 17-55mm lens. I still love the compression I get with my ef 70-200mm f/2.8 II, but when quarters are too tight, that ef-s lens hasn't failed me yet... :


----------



## Ryan_W (Dec 3, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> Was wondering if anyone else loved using their 16-35mm on their crop cameras.



Personally I didn't find a lot of use at the 16mm end because of distortion. I tried the 14mm f2.8 prime (not a fisheye) and ended up with some really great shots, way better than the 16-35 on the low end.

I wound up rolling with a 14mm for close up action and a 70-200 for normal-telephoto. I virtually ignored the inbetween range.


----------

