# How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 23, 2013)

Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. I previously found the same thing with my 17-40mmL.

I use it on my 5D MK III.

I do low light photography, and have analyzed the photos I've taken. Almost all of them are at f/2.8 and fall in the 24-35mm range of focal lengths. They also required that I boost my camera ISO to very high levels, often 25600.


I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to. It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.

Perhaps a 24mm L to go with my 35mmL, or a 24-70mm f/2.8 to replace it?

Here is a example taken at 35mm, ISO 25600. It was in blue light, which explains the tint. There is lots of noise, but it prints well at 8 X 10.

16-35mmL @ 35mm ISO 25600








I think I like the one taken with my 85mm f/1.8 at f/2 and ISO 16000 better. Maybe a 85mm f/1.2?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

"Impulse buying", oh yes I am an expert at that :-[ 
Anyway, I use my 16-35LII quite a bit as I make lot of drilling rig pics and really like its wide angle view, comes in real handy for me in the somewhat cramped quarters of rig floors. I don't shoot with primes much so can't comment much on your prime lens choices, but I had 24-70L II (I say "had" coz it was stolen), and if you like the sharpness of 16-35, you will absolutely love sharpness of 24-70L II (I'm assuming u r taking about the L II version)


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 23, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. ...
> 
> I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to. It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.



Lenses are simply tools, if you don't need this tool sell it. 

You have fallen into the trap of *"everybody has one so I need one too."*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2013)

I use mine occasionally, but I wouldn't say frequently. Mostly for travel and city walkabouts. Unlike you, a bit over 60% of my shots with the lens are in the 16-24mm focal range. 

Here are some from a relatively recent trip to San Francisco. The first is a long exposure on a tripod, the second two were high ISO to keep the shutter speed up (1/200 s for the last one, which was taken up through the windshield with the camera resting on the dashboard as I drove across the Golden Gate Bridge at 50 mph  ). All with the 1D X, 16mm, 17mm, and 20mm, and ISO 200, 12800, and 25600, respectively.


----------



## pedro (Mar 23, 2013)

Just bought a 16-35 F/2.8 L USM II today, second hand. looks like new, in perfect shape. I will use it very often, same I did with my 10-222 on the 30D. After this purchase I am quite done with lenses for my type of photography. Maybe I'll go for a 8-15 F/4 fisheye much later down the road. But the 16-35 is a standard lens for me. Along with the 50 F/1.4. I am excited about the price point: Paid CHF 998.00, brick and mortar store. Current Retail price: CHF 1998.00 or a little less. Online: from CHF 1367.00. So I consider it a pretty good deal.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 23, 2013)

I will have to say "meh"...not that much. It is a good performer, and I defend it here against those who rag on it with Nikon's 14-24.... but it is also fair to say that it is not one of those superb products that drives you to use it or motivates you.

It falls under the "I guess it will do" category. :-X


----------



## jcatterino (Mar 23, 2013)

pedro said:


> Just bought a 16-35 F/2.8 L USM II today, second hand. looks like new, in perfect shape. I will use it very often, same I did with my 10-222 on the 30D. After this purchase I am quite done with lenses for my type of photography. Maybe I'll go for a 8-15 F/4 fisheye much later down the road. But the 16-35 is a standard lens for me. Along with the 50 F/1.4. I am excited about the price point: Paid CHF 998.00, brick and mortar store. Current Retail price: CHF 1998.00 or a little less. Online: from CHF 1367.00. So I consider it a pretty good deal.



WOW... Great price!!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 23, 2013)

Not so much, actually. And I was just thinking the other day about whether or not I should sell mine, too. I'm not sure, but I'm leaning that direction.

When I do use it, I tend to use it full wide. And, any more, when I'm looking for something that wide, either I wind up doing a panorama or I'm reaching for the 8-15.

At the longer end...well, since my favorite lens is the TS-E 24, it wouldn't even occur to me to grab the 16-35 for something in that focal length range. And, as I type, I've got the 1.4x mounted to the TS-E 24, and I'm just waiting for the motions to die out on a mobile wood sculpture so I can take the shot. And for when I'm not doing tripod work, I've got both the 24-105 and 35L that cover the longer end.

So, the question for me really comes down to when I'd want a 16-24 (because I've got 24-35 covered much better) that I wouldn't want the fisheye and I also wouldn't be able to do a panorama of some type. And, honestly? Unless I start doing some sort of event work in tight quarters, I really just don't see that happening all that often.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 23, 2013)

On 16-35 lens, I only shoot at 16 to 25ish. If you shoot alot from 24-35mm, I highly recommend the new 24-70 f2.8 II. You think your 16-35 sharp at f2.8? wait until to shoot 24-70 at wide open


----------



## gjones5252 (Mar 23, 2013)

I actually use mine quite a bit. So much so that I am trying to slow down. I use it a ton for event photography which is a horrible idea in my opinion. Its distortion can really mess with people if they are not center frame. I have the 24-105 and i do not like it so i end up going with 16-35 zoomed in to lessen the amount of distortion. 
It is amazing for video. I cannot stress how great this lens is to use for any video i do. Just enough zoom and goes wide enough i can get a full room in a shot. 
Basically i wouldnt sell it to get another lens. I love my wide angle i just need to learn to use it at the right times.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 23, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> On 16-35 lens, I only shoot at 16 to 25ish. If you shoot alot from 24-35mm, I highly recommend the new 24-70 f2.8 II. You think your 16-35 sharp at f2.8? wait until to shoot 24-70 at wide open


 
I've been planning to buy the 24-70mm MK II. I had five of the MK I versions and hated them all, so I'm a bit gun shy.
I have far too many lenses, so I am selling some off. I sold 5 lenses this week (two of my 50mm f/1.4's, a 50mm f/1.8 MK I, my 85mm f/1.8, my old and unused 100-300mm USM, and have my 70-200mm f/4 IS listed). I just bought my third 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII, and I'll keep it. 
My main concern is low light, images shot at over ISO 3200 suffer noticeably, but look fairly good up to ISO 12800. Higher is problematic and needs a perfect exposure.

I might go for a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 if the 70-200 is not fast enough. My 135mm f/2 is my favorite, but I'm getting so I cannot move around well in the dark of a theatre going up and down steps. I'm diabetic and have no feeling in my feet to feel the edges of the steps, so I look down or go slowly. A zoom would minimize moving around.

I shoot at dress rehearsals and can move around a lot, even walk up on the stage, but its getting unsafe for me.

Here is the theater from the stage (one of my few 16mm shots)! The steps are not bad, but when you can't easily see or feel them, its a problem. I use that table in the center and line up all my primes and then move around to get different perspectives. I'm pretty good at changing lenses quickly in the dark.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 23, 2013)

16-35 is my most used lens. 
I like wide. 

My ideal lens would be a small, light weight, 17-28 2.8 that was sharp and contrasty everywhere. I'd even take 17-24 2.8 if it helped the designers make it small and still perform well.


----------



## BrettS (Mar 24, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> (I say "had" coz it was stolen)


That sux bud. Sorry. :-(


----------



## robrosenq (Mar 24, 2013)

I had shot on a 7D for a few years, and due to the crop factor, used my 16-35 L a lot more then. Now that I have a 5 D III, with full frame, the 16-35 is now a niche lens, with the 24-105 L the main "walk around" lens for the 5 D. However, the 16-35 is still very useful for very tall or very wide objects, such as urban skyscrapers, or National Park scenery. I was able to put the 16-35 to very good use recently on a trip to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada, to shoot the aurora borealis/northern lights. I had rented a 24 mm L f/1.4 for the trip, but found out that the wider field at 16 mm was very useful for capturing the wide grandeur of the scenes. Here are a couple of images shot with the 16-35 L, at f/2.8, ISO 640, and 25 seconds.


----------



## dirtcastle (Mar 24, 2013)

I have a similar "meh" attitude about this lens. It is a practical lens, but not very inspiring. And the distortion at the wide is a bit of a buzzkill for me. I would much rather be stuck with the inconvenience of primes. But, to be fair, the 16-35L is a relatively good deal for the price, especially because is a durable lens with quick AF and 16-35mm is a big range at the wide end.

The hard part about not liking this lens is... "What's the alternative?" For me, a 14L is not practical for the price and I don't want to deal with a filter-less lens until I'm filthy rich (not yet). A 24L would be a good deal, but its a bit close to a 35mm and leaves the < 24mm range uncovered.

Obviously, a lot of people are hoping for a 14-24mm L. But I feel like one of the great virtues of this lens is the coverage. I would be just as excited about a distortion-less 16mm f/2 (that takes filters) as I would about a 14-24mm L.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 24, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Obviously, a lot of people are hoping for a 14-24mm L.



There've even been some rumblings about a *12*-24, which is something that would _really_ get me to sit up and pay attention to.

Not quite sure just what the Hell I'd do with such a beast...but, boy, would it be fun trying to figure that out. _Especially_ if it has a very close minimum focus distance....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## rpt (Mar 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I use mine occasionally, but I wouldn't say frequently. Mostly for travel and city walkabouts. Unlike you, a bit over 60% of my shots with the lens are in the 16-24mm focal range.
> 
> Here are some from a relatively recent trip to San Francisco. The first is a long exposure on a tripod, the second two were high ISO to keep the shutter speed up (1/200 s for the last one, which was taken up through the windshield with the camera resting on the dashboard as I drove across the Golden Gate Bridge at 50 mph  ). All with the 1D X, 16mm, 17mm, and 20mm, and ISO 200, 12800, and 25600, respectively.


The second one with the swan is lovely!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 24, 2013)

I don't shoot much anymore with my 16-35L II lens, because it's just not practical for sports, which is all I've been doing lately. This spring and summer I will use it a lot more.

Even if Canon releases a 14-24 or 12-24, those will still suffer from the same problems the 16-35 does.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. ...
> ...


How much do you use your 16-35mmL? That was the question.

I did not ask for selling advice, I'll be able to make that decision. I was merely wondering if my 1200 some images over the past 7 months was sufficient usage.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Don't sweat his posts. They are typically combative and difficult.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...


 
I understand, the situation, it does not really bother me, just hoped he might be willing to provide the information, assuming he has the lens.


----------



## Vivid Color (Mar 24, 2013)

I was merely wondering if my 1200 some images over the past 7 months was sufficient usage.
[/quote]

How many images in total did you shoot over the past 7 months? And, how does your 16-35 mm usage compare to the rest of the lenses you use? That will answer the usage question but not the issue of sufficiency. Of the images you take with the 16-35 mm, what proportion of them could you have made with other lenses you own? Or, reverse that, and ask what proportion of images do you make with the 16-35 that you can ONLY make with that lens and how critical are those images to your work?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

Vivid Color said:


> I was merely wondering if my 1200 some images over the past 7 months was sufficient usage.



How many images in total did you shoot over the past 7 months? And, how does your 16-35 mm usage compare to the rest of the lenses you use? That will answer the usage question but not the issue of sufficiency. Of the images you take with the 16-35 mm, what proportion of them could you have made with other lenses you own? Or, reverse that, and ask what proportion of images do you make with the 16-35 that you can ONLY make with that lens and how critical are those images to your work?


I have analyzed all that, I answered most of those questions before I bought it. 

I was asking what usage others see.

How much do you use yours?

Last years usage was low due to my hand surgery, so the data is likely not all that useful after I bought the camera. Only about 7000 images since I've bought it. Hopefully, as my Carpal Tunnel heals, I'll be out using my camera a lot more.
I fo have a 15mm FE and a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that are very good, but f/2.8 seems to be on the margin.


----------



## Harry Muff (Mar 24, 2013)

The opportunities are everywhere for wide-angle pics. You just need to try and look for them.


All pics from a 5D2 and 16-35 II set to 16mm.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 1200 some images over the past 7 months


Now you are making me feel bad :-[ I'm embarrassed coz I made less than 100 images with my Sigma 150-500 OS in the last 1 year, if I made 1200 images in the next 2 years with my Sigma I'd be mighty pleased with my self. ;D

By the way, I think neuroanatomist is subtly telling you to keep the lens with his awesome images made with the 16-35 ;D
Here is my feeble attempt (its a 5D MK III in-camera HDR using 16-35 f/2.8 LII lens)


----------



## RuneL (Mar 24, 2013)

A lot.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 24, 2013)

RuneL said:


> A lot.


Just curious, what is the duration? ... I mean how long did it take you to make those 9000+ images with 16-35


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2013)

Personally, I think it's unwise to base such a decision on absolute number of shots or relative frequency of use compared to other lenses. I have dress shoes for work and casual shoes for weekends. Should I sell my snowshoes because I only get to use them once or twice a year? 

The shots I get with the 16-35L are, for the most part, shots I couldn't get with other lenses I have available. OTOH, Mt. Spokane, you mention using it mostly from 24-35mm - that would be a bigger concern for me. A 24-70/2.8L II might be a better choice, in that case.


----------



## RuneL (Mar 24, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > A lot.
> ...



The oldest are from 2006, but this catalogue mainy contains images from 2009 and forwards. If I filter since I got the 1D IV upon release it's 9726 with the 16-35, so 4 years-ish. I've still used the 24-70 and 70-200 a lot more (the latter makes sense though, since I mainly use it for sports)

Edit: since some previous posters deemed it necessary to attach pics to their answers I'll do the same:


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I think it's unwise to base such a decision on absolute number of shots or relative frequency of use compared to other lenses. I have dress shoes for work and casual shoes for weekends. Should I sell my snowshoes because I only get to use them once or twice a year?
> 
> The shots I get with the 16-35L are, for the most part, shots I couldn't get with other lenses I have available. OTOH, Mt. Spokane, you mention using it mostly from 24-35mm - that would be a bigger concern for me. A 24-70/2.8L II might be a better choice, in that case.


 
I'm inclined to sell it, since I do have the 17mm prime.

I may wait a few more months to decide, I'd like to do some landscape photography, but never seem to find the time.


If Canon had the 24-70mm MK II on their refurb sale that started today, I'd have it on order.  I'll likely order one very soon in any event.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If Canon had the 24-70mm MK II on their refurb sale that started today, I'd have it on order.  I'll likely order one very soon in any event.



I've decided I'm not _going to_ order a 24-70mm MkII. 

The fact that mine arrived from B&H last week might have something to do with that decision...


----------



## RGF (Mar 25, 2013)

If I want a UWA I go with the 14. At 24 I switch to 24-70. If I can i avoid the 16-35 since it is only a fair lens


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 25, 2013)

RGF said:


> i avoid the 16-35 since it is only a fair lens


How dare you insult one of my favorite lenses ;D ... BTW, before you do Jackie Chan up my comment - I'm just kidding.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon had the 24-70mm MK II on their refurb sale that started today, I'd have it on order.  I'll likely order one very soon in any event.
> ...


 
I was right on the verge of buying one from B&H yesterday, but I forced myself to hold off for a couple of weeks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I was right on the verge of buying one from B&H yesterday, but I forced myself to hold off for a couple of weeks.



Rebate may have ended by then (although it might not make a big difference in the street price). Just sayin'  .


----------



## kubelik (Mar 25, 2013)

my 16-35 stays on my 5DII almost all the time. I love having the 16mm to 28mm range all covered by one lens. the main thing is, I rarely am shooting people, so the distortion is not an issue. if I enjoying/was paid to photograph people, I probably wouldn't use it so much. most folks I know find it bizarre that my walk-around is an UW, but it works for the way I see things - I can't stand the "50mm is the human field of view" thing, my field of view definitely goes way wider than that.

at some point I'd like to upgrade to 24 f/1.4 as an all purpose walk-around, but I have a tough time justifying the overlap in focal length for the time being (also have 24-70 L).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I was right on the verge of buying one from B&H yesterday, but I forced myself to hold off for a couple of weeks.
> ...


I put one on order yesterday. I try to give business to our small local dealer Camera Corral in Couer d Alene, ID. 

Not too many towns with a population in the 45,000 range are lucky enough to have a pro camera store, I hope to do my part at keeping them here. They do have to custom order big ticket items, Canon is usually pretty good about helping them out. He was going to call the Canon Rep today and see if she could give him some priority, they can take a long time to arrive if they are out of stock.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2013)

Congrats! Enjoy it when you get it...


----------



## Eli (Mar 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon had the 24-70mm MK II on their refurb sale that started today, I'd have it on order.  I'll likely order one very soon in any event.
> ...



And how are you finding it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2013)

Eli said:


> And how are you finding it?



Excellent.  Wickedly sharp, great colors and contrast, blazing fast AF, solid build.


----------



## Eli (Mar 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eli said:
> 
> 
> > And how are you finding it?
> ...



Did you sell your 24-105?


----------



## Eli (Mar 27, 2013)

Sold my 24-105 and 24 f1.4 ii to get the 24-70 ii, can't wait for it to arrive tomorrow!


----------



## pedro (Mar 27, 2013)

I just bought it past saturday. second hand in excellent quality (CHF 998 used instead of CHF 1998 new). I do quite some landscape/nightscape. So after upgrading to FF it was the logical equivalent to my crop 10-22. Waiting for clear night skies at the moment...Concerning the 16-35 I am in the same boat as kubelik, good point though:



kubelik said:


> my 16-35 stays on my 5DII almost all the time. I love having the 16mm to 28mm range all covered by one lens. the main thing is, I rarely am shooting people, so the distortion is not an issue. if I enjoying/was paid to photograph people, I probably wouldn't use it so much. most folks I know find it bizarre that my walk-around is an UW, but it works for the way I see things - I can't stand the "50mm is the human field of view" thing, my field of view definitely goes way wider than that.


Here's two test shots, at insane ISOs as well:




Z96A3556bBWKLEIN by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

*ISO 102400*




Z96A3565bBWKLEINALT by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

*ISO 51200*


----------



## RGF (Mar 27, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > i avoid the 16-35 since it is only a fair lens
> ...



Glad you know good from bad. Wish that Canon and Nikon would exchange lens - we would gain a great 14-24 and Nikon users could have excellent 17 and 24 TS-E. Win - win for everyone


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2013)

Eli said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eli said:
> ...



No, I didn't. But if I don't use it, I will...


----------



## pwp (Mar 27, 2013)

Last year I upgraded from my ten year old 17-40 f/4 to a 16-35 f/2.8II. What a revelation. I'm using it a lot more than my 17-40, not specifically because it's a stop brighter but because it's sharper from f/4 and more importantly, the shots just "look better". There's a quality about shots from this lens that have nothing to do with sharpness, distortion characteristics or any measurable, quantifiable things. Like the new 24-70 f/2.8II there is that indefinable "something" that makes both these lenses winners in my business. 

To answer the OP's question...I use the 16-35 just about every day.

-PW


----------



## Inspiron41 (Mar 27, 2013)

16-35, 24-70 and 70-200L II are always in my camera bag whenever i go out to shoot weddings. when it comes to the 16-35, it really depends on the scene. whenever i have a great background with the couple or the bride, i usually pull it out. but honestly, it's the least used in my gear compared to my 5 other lens. again, this is from a wedding photographer perspective.


----------



## marcel (Mar 27, 2013)

The two versions of this lens are very different. The Mk 1 is very bad, poor definition. The Mk 2 is fantastic.


----------



## dafrank (Mar 27, 2013)

*My answer*

I too once had a 17-40 f/4.0 for a while, then bought the 16-35 f/2.8 version II. I use the lens quite frequently, mostly for architectural work - both interiors and exteriors - as well as many outdoor environments, and any time I need the either the extreme wide angle to cover my subject at close quarters, or to achieve a desired exagerrated "perspective" look to my picture. I usually use it only from about 16 to 28mm, because my version is not very good at 35mm and I have other, better lenses at that focal length. The center resolution is wonderful for an extreme wide angle zoom, and I find the lens excellent, except in the far corners where the uneven plane of focus, gives somewhat unpredictable results.

I would rather have the new 17mm TSE lens if I could (and the new 24 to replace my older version) for my architecture, but my budget won't quite stretch that far for now; the 16-35 will do fine for now, plus, as a zoom, it is very convenient to use. The only thing I might add is that for architectural work, you should have a good understanding of post processing tools in Photoshop to help with the inevitable tilted perspoective issues that pop up with a non-shifting lens.

Regards,
David


----------



## kubelik (Mar 27, 2013)

*Re: My answer*



dafrank said:


> I usually use it only from about 16 to 28mm, because my version is not very good at 35mm



that's exactly consistent with my experience of the lens. if I need to go mostly 24mm and above, it's really not worth using the 16-35, I go to the 24-70 instead. but for the wider-than-24 range it's fairly unmatchable in terms of flexibility if you're using a Canon camera


----------



## jcollett (Mar 27, 2013)

I shoot some ultra wide, but find it difficult to justify a large amount of money to something like the 16-35. I think what spoiled me was getting a great deal on a used Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4. It has a lens profile for lightroom and I got it for $200. The only thing missed is manual focus override. Just cannot justify spending hundreds to thousands more when this lens works quite well.


----------



## jcollett (Mar 27, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Not too many towns with a population in the 45,000 range are lucky enough to have a pro camera store, I hope to do my part at keeping them here. They do have to custom order big ticket items, Canon is usually pretty good about helping them out. He was going to call the Canon Rep today and see if she could give him some priority, they can take a long time to arrive if they are out of stock.



Not too many towns are as beautiful as Coeur d'Alene! The area deserves a pro shop.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 27, 2013)

ugh...i want one! i need it to complete my f/2.8 zoom trinity. I tried out some test shots at a local camera store this week. quality and sharpness at 2.8 aren't as "bad" as some have exaggerated here on the forums. I was able to get what I wanted after some minor work in LR4.


----------



## oldageadventurer (Mar 27, 2013)

Bought the lens(version 1) a few years ago for wide angle shots of African wildlife in their environment. We shoot in African game parks & ,must mostly stay in the car. I found the animals in foreground were too small & had distortion animals & horizon when lens wide open. Now use my 35-70 lens for the same shots. Find magnification of animals in foreground is what I need.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 27, 2013)

I use my 16-35/2.8 II now mainly for hiking. For most other purposes I use my TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II, but I favor my 16-35 for hiking because I rarely take a tripod, I need to keep down on the weight, and the TS-E 17 flares badly with bright lights.

I took this shot with it over the weekend.



A New Hiking Season by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2013)

When I was a crop user, I used my EF-S 10-22 all the time (16-35 equivalent), but noticed I was using it on the 22 end much more than the 10 end.

+1 to not needing that width once I went FF. I previously had the 24-70 F/2.8L Mk I on my crop and periodically needed more width as the equivalent 38mm was not wide enough for many shots. But once I went to FF, I only wish I could shoot wider than 24mm in very rare circumstances.

So I've treated picking up the 17-40 or 16-35 only if a bargain opportunity falls in my lap. 

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 27, 2013)

AudioGlenn said:


> ugh...i want one! i need it to complete my f/2.8 zoom trinity. I tried out some test shots at a local camera store this week. quality and sharpness at 2.8 aren't as "bad" as some have exaggerated here on the forums. I was able to get what I wanted after some minor work in LR4.


I think the quality is excellent, it might fall short of great though. I am just not using the wide end very much. I've decided to keep it thru the summer, at least.
Then, I'll analyze my usage again. If I end up only using my new 24-70mmL, then i'll sell it and use my Tokina 17mm f/3.5 or my Canon 15mm FE when I need ultra wide.


----------



## hanifshootsphotos (Mar 27, 2013)

I own a Canon 135mm L and the 16-35 is my favorite lens! I use it 80% of the time, here's some samples


http://500px.com/photo/23892975

http://500px.com/photo/28999777

http://500px.com/photo/21868565


----------



## pedro (Mar 27, 2013)

my new 16-35 in the real world tonight. the photograph was turned upside down as the reflection on the water was far more exciting....Cheers, Pedro.




Z96A3584b KELIN ALT2TLDEF by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


----------

