# Just got the canon 16-35 ii and having a hard time seeing the value in this uwa



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 18, 2013)

I never had a uwa and am going to disney for the 4th and was bringing my 24-70 and sigma 35 but when looking at photo's others were taking they seemed wider than longer. I have played with it tonight and am not sure if its going to serve much purpose since i tend to lack reach but it was highly suggested so I figured i would give it a shot. Any thoughts on how this lens is useful for anything other than landscapes?

This is an example of my vacation shots.



][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8658772983/]


Rapunzel character greeting by nvtsallo, on Flickr[/url]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2013)

It's useful when 24mm isn't wide enough. That happens sometimes, often indoors.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 18, 2013)

Are you just using it at the widest setting? I hate the idea that a lens is "meant" for a certain purpose, but some certainly lean a direction.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 18, 2013)

robbymack said:


> Are you just using it at the widest setting? I hate the idea that a lens is "meant" for a certain purpose, but some certainly lean a direction.


Well just for perspective. My worry is that if I got close then my subjects will be distorted. I wonder if I should have went for more reach. Just wish there were some people shots i could see for inspiration to keep the lens.


----------



## victorwol (Apr 18, 2013)

Have you check the Canon 16-35 flicker group? There is plenty of photos in there only with this lens. I have it and enjoy it a lot..


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Apr 18, 2013)

Try it, look how much you use it.
If you dont like it, sell it.

My copy was a lemon. Changed it for the Tokina 16-28; this I used a lot on my trip in Venice.
And yes: humans in the corners, espacially on the wide end can look a bit distorted.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 18, 2013)

victorwol said:


> Have you check the Canon 16-35 flicker group? There is plenty of photos in there only with this lens. I have it and enjoy it a lot..



I have but not many that i saw with people but rather landscape type shots.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 18, 2013)

I bought mine for wider than 24mm. There is a limited use for me with images that wide. Mostly large groups of people in limited space, or wide vistas.
I plan to use it this spring, and if it doesn't grow on me, I'll sell it. Now that I have the 24-70, that may be enough for almost all of my images.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 18, 2013)

A surreal question. The normal setting is that you desire/need a lens for the type of shots you have imagined - and then cough up the money for it. Not the other way around. I love mine


----------



## dmills (Apr 18, 2013)

When I bought my 60D, the first lens I purchased was the 10-22mm (similar to the 16-35 on a full frame). I used that as my only lens for nearly a year before buying a 24-105. During that year, I learned a lot of things:

*With an UWA lens, you need something close to your camera to be the 'anchor'. If everything is far away, it all looks flat. This is even more true on a fisheye lens.

*An UWA gives context to a subject. If you're taking a portrait, and you pull out your 70-200, and get a nice head and shoulders portrait, it will look great, but it will also look like every other portrait. By all means, get that shot, and then pull out the UWA and get a shot of the person doing something. In my opinion, the 70-200 captures the subject, the 35-50ish gets the subject and shows some background, and the sweet spot is the 16-24ish, where you're "telling a story". It's hard to tell a story with anything longer than 50mm. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's difficult. 

*An UWA gives you a greater depth of field even at the wider apertures. Pop it up to f8 or so, and you almost can't miss focus. On my 60D with the 10-22, I really never worried about focus unless I had something within 2 ft. of the lens. That's a nice thing! If you take a shot, and you just slap the focus somewhere in the middle, and you're around f5.6, it's pretty guaranteed to be clear.


----------



## sanj (Apr 18, 2013)

I really tried but do not understand this question at all.


----------



## dmills (Apr 18, 2013)

Because you said you were interested in pictures with people, I'll post some I took. Again, since I don't have a 16-35, you'll have to see one's I took with the 10-22. Since your question is about the UWA perspective related to people though, I think they're applicable.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Apr 18, 2013)

learncanon said:


> you don't see the real value because you are a beginner. This lens is meant for creative photographers who can think of depth, perspective, composition and intelligent framing.
> 
> Those 2 photos you posted are snapshot and can be easily taken using an iphone.



even though this was put rather rudely, I have to agree on some level. (although I think "learncanon" needs to learn a little tact)

an UWA is a special lens and from the examples you posted, it looks like a 24-70 might've been more up your alley...or at least a standard zoom. the distortion is something you can learn to play with. sounds to me like you purchased the lens without really knowing what you wanted from it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 18, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > Are you just using it at the widest setting? I hate the idea that a lens is "meant" for a certain purpose, but some certainly lean a direction.
> ...



It's great you're posting here because you tend to get the most expensive gear (which is absolutely legit, btw) and then wonder what to do with it, makes me feel better with having cheap gear but learning how to use it 

I got a wide angle lens *because* I want shots to be distorted and getting a "close up" effect, otherwise I just do a step back - I was shooting with a zoom starting at 45mm for the last years and seldom missed wider angles. Yes, uwa might be essential for some indoors people group shots but for architectural shots you can also do panorama stitching.

Please do see this, uwa is not for "taking it all in": *http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm*


----------



## serendipidy (Apr 18, 2013)

Some guy...I think his name was Picasso...became very famous and wealthy making images of distorted people ;D


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 18, 2013)

Yes but it was not because of the brush he used...


----------



## greger (Apr 18, 2013)

I think you made a wise decision buying the 16-35 mm lens. You will get some really nice pics with it on you 5Dlll. It won't happen right away but as you get used to using it your results will improve. Put it on you camera and go to an outdoor car show and take pics. You will be able to get pics that look like they came out of a magazine. At Christmas you can take pics of lights on houses and get the whole scene with ease. Scenery pics will look better if you work hard to get a good composition. Its a lens I would be buying if I went full frame.


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 18, 2013)

The lens will distort anyone that you take a picture of. Typically a portrait is taken with a lens in the range of 50mm - 200mm, which minimizes distortion. 50mm is equivalent to what you see with your eye. With that being said it doesn't mean that you cant take good pictures or portraits with your 16-35. In tight spaces you might need the wide end of that lens. If you have Mickey Mouse standing there next to you take the picture with the lens closer to him to make him larger than life while still including the family. Basically, you have to be more creative with an ultra-wide to make images that are stunning. It is a really fun lens!! Just practice with it & get a feel for the lens. I love mine!


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 18, 2013)

AudioGlenn said:


> learncanon said:
> 
> 
> > you don't see the real value because you are a beginner. This lens is meant for creative photographers who can think of depth, perspective, composition and intelligent framing.
> ...



Yeah i had money to burn and wanted a lens other than my 2470 and 70200 combo so went for it just not sure for my upcoming vacation if this was a good buy vs a lighter telephoto like the 70-300l so put up this post to see real world uses before I just returned it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 18, 2013)

Personally, I think you need to settle down and cool off on all the new gear. Just use your camera and a few lenses and get good at photography before you worry so much about gear all the time. Just some friendly advice that I think will help you relax.


----------



## stefsan (Apr 18, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> Yes but it was not because of the brush he used...



;D Good one!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 18, 2013)

UWA's are fun! They aren't 'easy' to use because of the extreme perspective, but, they are quite useful for many types of shots! You do have to consider the elements in the shot, where with something like a 50mm it's 'easier.'

Sometimes it's not just for tight spaces either...

Here's a few with people. First is from a same sex wedding, the other 2 are from a very small wedding with the same group of people with 16-35, then a 50 1.4. Last is from a larger wedding.

keep it or sell it? It really depends on what your doing with it. UWA's have a special look to them, but, you do have to know what your doing with them to get the most out of them, and you should have some other lenses for a more natural look. If your just looking to get good shots of the fam on vacations, sell the 16-35 and snag a 24-105


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 18, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> UWA's are fun! They aren't 'easy' to use because of the extreme perspective, but, they are quite useful for many types of shots! You do have to consider the elements in the shot, where with something like a 50mm it's 'easier.'
> 
> Sometimes it's not just for tight spaces either...
> 
> ...



First shot is brilliant! I was just going to reccomend the OP to check out Scott Kelby's tips on wide angle portraits, when I stumbled on your great shot.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 18, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > UWA's are fun! They aren't 'easy' to use because of the extreme perspective, but, they are quite useful for many types of shots! You do have to consider the elements in the shot, where with something like a 50mm it's 'easier.'
> ...



TY! That one was especially tricky because I had the couple framed at the edge, where the distortion would be the worst. I did do some work in LR to reduce the distortion.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 18, 2013)

[/quote]


TY! That one was especially tricky because I had the couple framed at the edge, where the distortion would be the worst. I did do some work in LR to reduce the distortion. 
[/quote]

With a great result! What kind of light set-up did you use for it?


----------



## Harry Muff (Apr 18, 2013)

This lens does take some learning, but I'm getting there and I'm sure you will too.


Explore different viewpoints (as you should do with any lens) and also consider using flash while experimenting with both exposure compensation and flash compensation too.


This ain't no normal lens, so don't try to use it as such.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 18, 2013)

TY! That one was especially tricky because I had the couple framed at the edge, where the distortion would be the worst. I did do some work in LR to reduce the distortion. 
[/quote]

With a great result! What kind of light set-up did you use for it?
[/quote]

I did have 2 off cam speedlights...no modifyers


----------



## nehemiah (Apr 18, 2013)

For amazing people portraits, go to jeff ascough's site. He uses this lens (although it may be a bit tricky to figure out which photo goes with which lens). He has plenty of wa/uwa shots that are simply excellent.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 18, 2013)

here's a couple more....different setting completely


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 18, 2013)

and 2 more...again, totally different scene...

in the first one I was definitely embracing the distortion, the girl I was shooting was very thin and not overly tall, but taller than average. This is where distortion can be your friend...but even with that in mind...it's not for everyone.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 18, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> UWA's are fun! They aren't 'easy' to use because of the extreme perspective, but, they are quite useful for many types of shots! You do have to consider the elements in the shot, where with something like a 50mm it's 'easier.'
> 
> Sometimes it's not just for tight spaces either...
> 
> ...



Whoohoo!!

I had to double take on the first one with two chicks kissing....

:


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 19, 2013)

ok here is another one of my favorite shots to take. I think now that I like more reach than a uwa gives and my style is not landscape so you are all right in that I should have bought based on need rather than completing a trio of excellent lenses because other people have them.http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]N03/8661001977/#

This was with my sigma 35mm. I am just into isolation and that 3d affect. I am seeing already too much is left in the frame for my type of photography. I probably should have grabbed the 50 or 85mm prime. I know I would not be on here asking its use. I just figured I would try something new and I do eventually want to grab some of my downtown Chicago skyline and this lens would fit that bill. Just on the fence.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 19, 2013)

I mainly use 16-35 II for landscape. I found 24-70 II is wide enough on FF and is so much sharper at f2.8 for family vacation.

Since I have 2 kids(2&4yrs), Sony RX1 will be my 1st choice as a travel camera.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 19, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Personally, I think you need to settle down and cool off on all the new gear. Just use your camera and a few lenses and get good at photography before you worry so much about gear all the time. Just some friendly advice that I think will help you relax.



+1


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 19, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I think you need to settle down and cool off on all the new gear. Just use your camera and a few lenses and get good at photography before you worry so much about gear all the time. Just some friendly advice that I think will help you relax.
> ...



Thanks for the honesty


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 19, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> Try it, look how much you use it.
> If you dont like it, sell it.
> 
> My copy was a lemon. Changed it for the Tokina 16-28; this I used a lot on my trip in Venice.
> And yes: humans in the corners, espacially on the wide end can look a bit distorted.


yes, but you can fix them in a flash in DXO...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 19, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I mainly use 16-35 II for landscape.


Same here


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Apr 19, 2013)

I LOVE using UWA's!

The images here are from the 17-40. I chose these in particular since they are all shot as wide as possible. I also use my UWA ~2x a week working indoors for a company here in Tulsa. I would, however, really consider your style. My wife rarely ever shoots with my 17-40 on her 60D, she prefers the 35L, that is her style and that is what she uses to get results. The 17-40 was the first L lens we bought and I have grown to love it despite it's flaws. Next year I plan on upgrading to the 16-35, but if you are a fan of the UWA look, I would consider the 16-35, 17-40, or Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have used all three and have few complaints with any of them.

Again, if wide is your style, have some fun, but if not, save your money to later optimize _your_ shooting style.

-Tabor


----------



## eml58 (Apr 19, 2013)

I have it, used to use it quite a bit, mainly Landscape, but found, as have others, that it has issues, mainly as has been pointed out, corner distortion. I finally bought the New TSE 17 & TSE 24 and have been extremely happy with the results from these two lenses.

I've even used it for a while in my Underwater Imaging, Housed in a Seacam Housing attached to the 5DMK2 & now the 5DMK 3, horrible is about the only word I can think of in this situation.

I'de say for me, the 16-35f/2.8 L II has been my most disappointing Canon Lens.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 19, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> ok here is another one of my favorite shots to take. I think now that I like more reach than a uwa gives and my style is not landscape so you are all right in that I should have bought based on need rather than completing a trio of excellent lenses because other people have them.http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8661001977/#
> 
> This was with my sigma 35mm. I am just into isolation and that 3d affect. I am seeing already too much is left in the frame for my type of photography. I probably should have grabbed the 50 or 85mm prime. I know I would not be on here asking its use. I just figured I would try something new and I do eventually want to grab some of my downtown Chicago skyline and this lens would fit that bill. Just on the fence.



Obviously you're doing well enough professionally (in whatever field that may be) to afford these nice things and go on nice vacations with the family. to get to that point in your career likely took a good deal of time and effort. Apply the same now to your photography. A lens wont improve your photography as much as shooting thousands of images will. Get out there and shoot and don't worry so much about keeping up with the gear head nuts who think nothing can be done without a $2000 lens. If I was in your shoes I'd pick one lens and only shoot with that for the better part of a year, maybe even try a 365 or 52 project. That will teach you more about photography than any course/book/shiny new object of your desire ever will.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 19, 2013)

[/quote]

Whoohoo!!

I had to double take on the first one with two chicks kissing....

:
[/quote]

Hilarious, I'm hopeless, didn't notice that until I read your Post, no wonder I'm a mediocre Photographer, cant see the wood for the Trees, or what ever.


----------



## romanr74 (Apr 19, 2013)

use it a lot when travelling cities and love it...


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2013)

The Tokina 16-28 is a far better buy than the Canon 16-35. I just used one for the first time, today. It's sharper, and costs just over half. The only thing it can't do is use filters...but how many of the above shots were done with filters? In these days of HDR, how necessary is it to use sky grad filters for landscape? If you are rigidly traditional, that's one thing. I'm not. I'm also not as big of a fan of polarizer filters...although if you are shooting large expanses of water in mid day light (for some reason)...then they can come in handy.

I personally would like a 24mm T/S lens to go along with the wide zoom, but I won't be buying a T/S anytime soon. I guess a solution would be to rent when necessary.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> The Tokina 16-28 is a far better buy than the Canon 16-35. I just used one for the first time, today. It's sharper, and costs just over half.



The Achilles' heel of the Tokina is flare control (or the lack of) - try shooting into the sun or point light sources at dusk/night and you'll get very "artistic" results - and with an uwa lens you're bound to have lights in the picture often.

The Canon's are much better, the 17-40 is said to be even best (probably due to the smaller lens diameter), I have never managed to get any flare at all. So for strictly indoor shots w/o effect or protection filter, the Tokina is excellent value, but imho that's about it.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2013)

Marsu, excellent point. However, I did shoot the Tokina outdoors and into the sun today. I saw no flare. If there ever is some, surely it is minimal.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 19, 2013)

dilbert said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > Any thoughts on how this lens is useful for anything other than landscapes?
> ...





Please elaborate on this informed comment.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Marsu, excellent point. However, I did shoot the Tokina outdoors and into the sun today. I saw no flare. If there ever is some, surely it is minimal.



I didn't research it that much, but the sample shots I saw were mostly night-time like these, and you don't get this type of flare (circles around point lights) with the 17-40L (and afaik 16-35L): http://www.mattsepeta.com/tokina-16-28mm-f2-8-review


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2013)

Interesting, I've not seen flare like that before. I'll see if I can get my friend to let me try the lens at night.

This is the wide zoom I was working toward purchasing for myself. I don't anticipate shooting many street light scenes with my night photography, though. I prefer to shoot the Milky Way...and the upcoming comet which is supposedly going to be gigantic and bright in the sky. If it is, of course there will be billions of photos shot of it...so mine probably won't matter much. I guess it would help if it didn't have some weird flare around it...but maybe it could be cloned out.


----------



## eyeland (Apr 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> the upcoming comet which is supposedly going to be gigantic and bright in the sky


Sorry to off-topic, but which comet are you referring to? 
Been wanting to get into astro photographs for a while, and that sounds like a good reason for a trip to the darkness


----------



## Northstar (Apr 19, 2013)

KKC,

I read your post and thought to myself, "isn't this the guy that wrote that he was thinking of selling his 5d3 and downgrading his whole system just a few months ago?" 

So, I looked at your recent posts and sure enough, yes you did. Then I noticed that you did a 180 and went the other direction and spent quite a bit more money on a sig 35 1.4 and the 16-35...and the whole time you've been contemplating a 1DX?

My two cents...slow way down my friend....way down.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 19, 2013)

Northstar said:


> KKC,
> 
> I read your post and thought to myself, "isn't this the guy that wrote that he was thinking of selling his 5d3 and downgrading his whole system just a few months ago?"
> 
> ...


I know but I have a short period of time here before my extra photo money will run out so I was trying to get some gear Before I am wanting a lens I can no longer afford. I love my sigma 35mm now that I mfa it the iq is awesome. I am just having a hard time creatively with the 16-35.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 19, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > KKC,
> ...



extra photo money?

is someone giving you money to spend on gear for a limited amount of time? ;D :


----------



## risc32 (Apr 19, 2013)

maybe it's like that movie "brewster's millions". that's a good one.
i agree, you should slow down. 

also, that tokina can't take filters, and has a screwy manual focus system, but if that stuff doesn't bother you... i'd rather have the 17-40, but that's just me. if you can't see the value in the 16-35 over something like the 17-40 or tokina you shouldn't buy it.


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 19, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> and 2 more...again, totally different scene...
> 
> in the first one I was definitely embracing the distortion, the girl I was shooting was very thin and not overly tall, but taller than average. This is where distortion can be your friend...but even with that in mind...it's not for everyone.



Chuck, I love the look and perspective of that second shot! Her legs go on for miles..... 8)


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 19, 2013)

No offense, but the pictures you took are very boring and don't seem like you put much effort into experimenting with positioning/composition. With UWA's you have to get close to the subjects, or at least close to some part of the image. It's a great lens if you like to shoot ultra-wide, but you have to learn to shoot ultra wide first. 16mm just may not be for you. 

I say keep your 24-70, sell your 16-35mm and pick up the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for $399 and that way you have a UWA if you end up needing it in the future and it's much less costly.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2013)

eyeland said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > the upcoming comet which is supposedly going to be gigantic and bright in the sky
> ...



The name escapes me at the moment and I'm in a hurry...late as usual. Try googling "fall 2013 comet".


----------



## gary (Apr 19, 2013)

I am surprised that you find the 16-35 uninspired. I have similar lenses to you and each of them serve a different and sometimes overlapping function. I have only recently acquired the 16-35 but had a clear idea what I was looking for it to be. For me spending a large amount of money on a lens is everything to do with need and knowing in advance what I want to use it for and of course getting lots of advice, but I would never buy a lens with a single purpose in mind unless I am looking to a prime. The 16-35 provides the opportunity to be creative, perhaps more creative than with the other lenses in the bag. I have bought mine primarily for landscapes/seascapes but also intend to use it for portrait and architecture. Experiment with it and I am sure you will be surprised at its flexibility. Good luck, don't give up.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 19, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> I LOVE using UWA's!
> 
> The images here are from the 17-40. I chose these in particular since they are all shot as wide as possible. I also use my UWA ~2x a week working indoors for a company here in Tulsa. I would, however, really consider your style. My wife rarely ever shoots with my 17-40 on her 60D, she prefers the 35L, that is her style and that is what she uses to get results. The 17-40 was the first L lens we bought and I have grown to love it despite it's flaws. Next year I plan on upgrading to the 16-35, but if you are a fan of the UWA look, I would consider the 16-35, 17-40, or Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have used all three and have few complaints with any of them.
> 
> ...



Tabor, I love these shots. Very few portrait photographers have the courage to use an UWA. Even fewer have the talent to know how to use it. You have both.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 19, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > and 2 more...again, totally different scene...
> ...



TY...I hope its the shot you like and not the girl...lol... that was from a fashion show


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 19, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> I LOVE using UWA's!
> 
> The images here are from the 17-40. I chose these in particular since they are all shot as wide as possible. I also use my UWA ~2x a week working indoors for a company here in Tulsa. I would, however, really consider your style. My wife rarely ever shoots with my 17-40 on her 60D, she prefers the 35L, that is her style and that is what she uses to get results. The 17-40 was the first L lens we bought and I have grown to love it despite it's flaws. Next year I plan on upgrading to the 16-35, but if you are a fan of the UWA look, I would consider the 16-35, 17-40, or Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have used all three and have few complaints with any of them.
> 
> ...



Nice shots! UWA's aren't easy, but when you nail it, you get results like this...very nice!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 19, 2013)

I do agree with everyone here, but, you have the lens. Unless you plan to return it for full price to the place you bought it, I would say keep it (unless money is real tight). Consider it to be a challenge, learn how to use it with people...or, just be glad that you have a great landscape lens. I love my 16-35 and it's become my go to even photography lens. I do a lot of freelance work for a a local publication and generally speaking it's my go to lens for that work. I guess it all depends on how much ambition you have with photography (you seem to have a large $$$ budget, but do you have the time to tinker with the lens, dig into it, figure out how it can be used?). If you lack the time, and the patience to learn, then yeah, sell it and stick with the focal lengths your comfortable with. But, if you give it a chance then you may find you'll like it in the long run. Your call obviously, but as one who loves the lens, it's hard to just say go sell it....


----------



## Northstar (Apr 20, 2013)

Cck Alaimo said:


> I do agree with everyone here, but, you have the lens. Unless you plan to return it for full price to the place you bought it, I would say keep it (unless money is real tight). Consider it to be a challenge, learn how to use it with people...or, just be glad that you have a great landscape lens. I love my 16-35 and it's become my go to even photography lens. I do a lot of freelance work for a a local publication and generally speaking it's my go to lens for that work. I guess it all depends on how much ambition you have with photography (you seem to have a large $$$ budget, but do you have the time to tinker with the lens, dig into it, figure out how it can be used?). If you lack the time, and the patience to learn, then yeah, sell it and stick with the focal lengths your comfortable with. But, if you give it a chance then you may find you'll like it in the long run. Your call obviously, but as one who loves the lens, it's hard to just say go sell it....



Chuck..with these gdeat shots you have me thinking about buying this lens! Nice!


----------



## Stewbyyy (Apr 20, 2013)

Not with the 16-35mm but with a 10-20mm Sigma on a 1D Mark IIN. I feel it's relevant as it shows how an UWA lens can be utilised with people.

I adore UWA lenses, I love the way they put subjects into context. It's all about getting close when you use a UWA. Not always something liked by photographers, especially those who prefer to stay discrete.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 20, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I do agree with everyone here, but, you have the lens. Unless you plan to return it for full price to the place you bought it, I would say keep it (unless money is real tight). Consider it to be a challenge, learn how to use it with people...or, just be glad that you have a great landscape lens. I love my 16-35 and it's become my go to even photography lens. I do a lot of freelance work for a a local publication and generally speaking it's my go to lens for that work. I guess it all depends on how much ambition you have with photography (you seem to have a large $$$ budget, but do you have the time to tinker with the lens, dig into it, figure out how it can be used?). If you lack the time, and the patience to learn, then yeah, sell it and stick with the focal lengths your comfortable with. But, if you give it a chance then you may find you'll like it in the long run. Your call obviously, but as one who loves the lens, it's hard to just say go sell it....



Yeah i should have researched or rented before I bought. Thw uwa just is not a perspective I am going for right now. I like tighter shots with less of the environment in the pic. I rented the 100mm macro and a 1.4 extender to see if going in that direction inspires me otherwise ill hang onto it and after 6 months if it goes unused ill sell it.


----------



## wayno (Apr 20, 2013)

Does the 100 go with an extender? I thought not....?


----------



## Harry Muff (Apr 20, 2013)

I tried my 2x Mk1 on my 100L IS and it was a no go.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 20, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree with everyone here, but, you have the lens. Unless you plan to return it for full price to the place you bought it, I would say keep it (unless money is real tight). Consider it to be a challenge, learn how to use it with people...or, just be glad that you have a great landscape lens. I love my 16-35 and it's become my go to even photography lens. I do a lot of freelance work for a a local publication and generally speaking it's my go to lens for that work. I guess it all depends on how much ambition you have with photography (you seem to have a large $$$ budget, but do you have the time to tinker with the lens, dig into it, figure out how it can be used?). If you lack the time, and the patience to learn, then yeah, sell it and stick with the focal lengths your comfortable with. But, if you give it a chance then you may find you'll like it in the long run. Your call obviously, but as one who loves the lens, it's hard to just say go sell it....
> ...



You probably know this, but, glass does keep it's value pretty well, so, unless you can just return it for full refund (they may charge ya a restocking fee, depends on where you bought it) you can still resell it. Hell, I bought mine used from adorama for $1339. So if you don't drop it, or let it sit out in the rain, or keep it in your car when its over 100 degrees outside, throw it in the pool, etc etc) you should be able to get a good return on it hell just give this guy a call --



Northstar said:


> Cck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree with everyone here, but, you have the lens. Unless you plan to return it for full price to the place you bought it, I would say keep it (unless money is real tight). Consider it to be a challenge, learn how to use it with people...or, just be glad that you have a great landscape lens. I love my 16-35 and it's become my go to even photography lens. I do a lot of freelance work for a a local publication and generally speaking it's my go to lens for that work. I guess it all depends on how much ambition you have with photography (you seem to have a large $$$ budget, but do you have the time to tinker with the lens, dig into it, figure out how it can be used?). If you lack the time, and the patience to learn, then yeah, sell it and stick with the focal lengths your comfortable with. But, if you give it a chance then you may find you'll like it in the long run. Your call obviously, but as one who loves the lens, it's hard to just say go sell it....
> ...



LOL... just remember too, you may be very into the " tighter shots with less of the environment in the pic," right now, but, think ahead...I love the tight shots too, and have lenses to cover that range - but, when that situation comes up that you need it, or, when you get sick of tight shots and want something different... we all evolve as photogs... a little story, when I was running with only a 7D, I snagged a used 70-200 2.8 (the non IS version). On a 7d it was just a bit too long (1.6 crop) for most of what I was doing. So, it sat in the bag more than not and the 24-70 got the bulk of the workload. But, when I upgraded to FF, that 70-200 went from dead weight in the bag to one of my favorite lenses to use. And now that I have the 16-35 and a 50 1.4...its the 24-70 that sits in the bag...or worse, doesn't even go in the bag when i go out and shoot. So keep that in mind, it may not fit your style and needs RIGHT NOW...but, what about 6 months from now, a year from now....


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 20, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> I tried my 2x Mk1 on my 100L IS and it was a no go.


On that topic, from TDP:

_"As a rule, but subject to change, the Canon lenses compatible with the Canon EF 2x III Extender include *fixed focal length L lenses with focal lengths of 135mm and longer*, *zoom L lenses with at least 70mm of focal length on their wide end* (the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens excluded) and *Canon TS-E Tilt-Shift lenses* (though these are not included on Canon's official compatibility chart). The following list of discontinued lenses fitting these parameters are compatible, but may require camera microfocus calibration for accurate focusing (note that not all DSLR cameras support microfocus calibration):

Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM Lens (non-IS)
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L USM Lens (non-IS)
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens (non-IS)
Canon EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM Lens
Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM Lens"_

Link = http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-2x-III-Review.aspx
(pan down about halfway)

Who knew you could extend a tilt-shift? You learn something new every day.

- A


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 20, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I do agree with everyone here, but, you have the lens. Unless you plan to return it for full price to the place you bought it, I would say keep it (unless money is real tight). Consider it to be a challenge, learn how to use it with people...or, just be glad that you have a great landscape lens. I love my 16-35 and it's become my go to even photography lens. I do a lot of freelance work for a a local publication and generally speaking it's my go to lens for that work. I guess it all depends on how much ambition you have with photography (you seem to have a large $$$ budget, but do you have the time to tinker with the lens, dig into it, figure out how it can be used?). If you lack the time, and the patience to learn, then yeah, sell it and stick with the focal lengths your comfortable with. But, if you give it a chance then you may find you'll like it in the long run. Your call obviously, but as one who loves the lens, it's hard to just say go sell it....


I like the pictures you've posted. I don't have an UWA option at the moment, 24 is my widest. My gear spending account is currently empty. I've been contemplating the 17-40 to start with just to have something to learn from. I love the wide perspective and like you say, distortion can be your friend. The OP is in a lucky spot and I hope he will enjoy the 16-35 over time.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 20, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree with everyone here, but, you have the lens. Unless you plan to return it for full price to the place you bought it, I would say keep it (unless money is real tight). Consider it to be a challenge, learn how to use it with people...or, just be glad that you have a great landscape lens. I love my 16-35 and it's become my go to even photography lens. I do a lot of freelance work for a a local publication and generally speaking it's my go to lens for that work. I guess it all depends on how much ambition you have with photography (you seem to have a large $$$ budget, but do you have the time to tinker with the lens, dig into it, figure out how it can be used?). If you lack the time, and the patience to learn, then yeah, sell it and stick with the focal lengths your comfortable with. But, if you give it a chance then you may find you'll like it in the long run. Your call obviously, but as one who loves the lens, it's hard to just say go sell it....
> ...



Sorry i rented the 100mm macro to try for portraits and the 1.4 extender for my 70-200 to see if more reach is of any inspiration but it aounds like the 16-35 will help make me work for composition so maybe it is a good lens for my. I love that foreworks shot.


----------



## wayno (Apr 20, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Kkc...stop it. Unless you are a pro or rich amateur...then stop spending your cute kids college education funds and your family's retirement fund on lenses that give you almost no discernible difference in IQ to your current gear.
> 
> I write this because you've wrote that you're not a pro, and you indicated that your money is limited...so screw your head on straight and realize (like you did a few months ago when you posted about downgrading your entire system) the you've probably already over indulged in camera gear for your your needs.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Or go and buy something like a Fujifilm X100s and begin to wonder why the hell you're spending all this money on big and expensive lenses and cameras


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 20, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Kkc...stop it. Unless you are a pro or rich amateur...then stop spending your cute kids college education funds and your family's retirement fund on lenses that give you almost no discernible difference in IQ to your current gear.
> 
> I write this because you've wrote that you're not a pro, and you indicated that your money is limited...so screw your head on straight and realize (like you did a few months ago when you posted about downgrading your entire system) the you've probably already over indulged in camera gear for your your needs.
> 
> ...



Really? Trying to expand my creative options with adding lenses is a good thing am I supposed to be bound to the 24-70 70-200 because thats good glass? I like changing lenses and playing around with different shots. 6 months ago I was uninspired snd now I am getting into shooting again so I said to myself i am going on vacation and at walt disney there are a lot of uwa shots. Then i thought well what other reasons could i use this so after the purchase i second guessed my decision so I asked this forum for what only a few people provided PICTURES of examples to give me some perspective. I also want a macro for flowers and bugs. I want more reach, a travel telephoto (70-300l). d o I buy all them at once or one at a time as the need arises. I thought since this trip was coming up and I am going on a cruise next june that I should give it a try. Apparently this forum is not what I thought it was and yeah who does not go thru spells of wanting to carry less. I solved that by getting a sony nex 6 for short trips. I listened to your advice and kept my 5d vs getting a 1dx or moving down to a 6d. Now I ask it on uses for a lens and I am criticized?


----------



## robbymack (Apr 20, 2013)

Fwiw I don't usually listen to folks who tell me how to spend my money, especially those behind a computer. If you got it who am I (or we) to tell you how to spend it. If it makes you happy so be it. That being said I think you're chasing happiness in your photography and while new shiny toys isn't a bad way to go about it, I think you've reached the point where you've realized that's not entirely true. Get out and shoot, and when your tired shoot some more. I think once your skills start to refine themselves you'll get back to appreciating what you have.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 20, 2013)

robbymack said:


> Fwiw I don't usually listen to folks who tell me how to spend my money, especially those behind a computer. If you got it who am I (or we) to tell you how to spend it. If it makes you happy so be it. That being said I think you're chasing happiness in your photography and while new shiny toys isn't a bad way to go about it, I think you've reached the point where you've realized that's not entirely true. Get out and shoot, and when your tired shoot some more. I think once your skills start to refine themselves you'll get back to appreciating what you have.


 Thanks thats a fair statement. I have been and looking at past pics and making a shot and gear list for this trip which is why the whole uwa came up. It is returnable. Just don't want to return it to buy it later.


----------



## wayno (Apr 20, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Kkc...stop it. Unless you are a pro or rich amateur...then stop spending your cute kids college education funds and your family's retirement fund on lenses that give you almost no discernible difference in IQ to your current gear.
> ...



Each to their own - and I'm the last person to warn against buying too many lenses. But I do think creativity sometimes is better fostered with LESS gear rather than more. Some of my most creative photographic experiences have been with just a single prime lens.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 20, 2013)

I'd return it. You say it doesn't fit your eye so no reason to have it at this point. If you develop a need or want for it later its not going anywhere. By then you'll probably also just buy used because you'll know there is little difference between new and used glass other than price. I've been to Disney a lot with the family. Do yourself (and the wife) a favor take one lens and enjoy the family. Last trip to Disney I just took my old Olympus film camera with one roll of film (24 exposures). So much happier that way, no reason to interrupt the fun for dads silly hobby


----------



## Northstar (Apr 20, 2013)

Kkc...I deleted my post. You're right, it's not my place to tell you how to spend your money or even give an opinion on that subject. I was very much out of line. I'm sorry. 

Fwiw...A small and light travel camera is a great option for Disney when traveling with young kids....IMO.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 20, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Kkc...I deleted my post. You're right, it's not my place to tell you how to spend your money or even give an opinion on that subject. I was very much out of line. I'm sorry.
> 
> Fwiw...A small and light travel camera is a great option for Disney when traveling with young kids....IMO.



Thanks no hard feelings. I understand e eryone will have their opinion that I did ask for.


----------



## motorhead (Apr 20, 2013)

My 16-35 is my least used lens by some margin. It me entirely - I've discovered I simply look at the world in terms of telephoto lenses, not wide angle.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 20, 2013)

I still say keep the lens unless you are in serious debt. There may come a day and time where you want that wide angle look, and if you have it already you can just do it as opposed to selling it now then finding in a year that you actually do want to shoot that kind of shot. All it takes is that one aha moment to turn your paper weight lens into your favorite lens...


----------



## Vivid Color (Apr 20, 2013)

KKC: I'd say if you are in doubt and can still get your money back, then return the lens. (That's my general rule that I apply to almost everything I purchase that has a good return policy--if in doubt, take it back.) You can always purchase it later if you become more certain about your decision. If, however, the full money back return period is over, then it sounds like you might need some PPR: post-purchase reinforcement. From what I've read and seen from other posts and threads on this list and other websites, the 16-35 II is an amazing lens. (Full disclosure: It and the 100 mm L macro are the next two lenses I want to get.) I'm sure that there are many websites that can provide inspiration. And, from the photos you posted, they show that the lens can deliver absolutely wonderful and rich colors. So, if you can't return it for full price, then I'd suggest hanging on to it for awhile and using it as much as you can. Love isn't always at first sight. But, if you don't grow to love it, you can always sell it.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 20, 2013)

Vivid Color said:


> KKC: I'd say if you are in doubt and can still get your money back, then return the lens. (That's my general rule that I apply to almost everything I purchase that has a good return policy--if in doubt, take it back.) You can always purchase it later if you become more certain about your decision. If, however, the full money back return period is over, then it sounds like you might need some PPR: post-purchase reinforcement. From what I've read and seen from other posts and threads on this list and other websites, the 16-35 II is an amazing lens. (Full disclosure: It and the 100 mm L macro are the next two lenses I want to get.) I'm sure that there are many websites that can provide inspiration. And, from the photos you posted, they show that the lens can deliver absolutely wonderful and rich colors. So, if you can't return it for full price, then I'd suggest hanging on to it for awhile and using it as much as you can. Love isn't always at first sight. But, if you don't grow to love it, you can always sell it.



+100 ...said almost the same thing...more inspiration


----------



## Etienne (Apr 20, 2013)

I bought the 16-35L II several years ago because the sale price was too good to pass up. I didn't use it much for about a year. Finally I decided I had to learn how to use this lens so I went out regularly with only the 5DII and the 16-35 lens. That forced me to work out how to use the lens.

At first I was a bit frustrated because you have to look at things differently in order to see the shot opportunity. Many of the best Photojournalism shots are taken with this lens, or other ultra-wides. Check out: 
http://bit.ly/Yj8uzu
http://bit.ly/XNBfa2

Google photojournalism awards and you'll notice a lot of ultra-wide shots.

Long story short, it became my favorite lens, and I rarely leave home without it.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 20, 2013)

Honestly...you got me thinking of of how to get even more use out of mine because now I'm looking at examples! How I approach it now, unless i can look at a scene and see some feature that just screams UWA, I tend to go on the idea of ...use the primes and the 70-200 first, then, take some risks!!!! 

Here's some just general google search results for "portrait shots using canon 16-35mm"

http://www.coryparris.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/027.jpg
http://abloggablelife.typepad.com/.a/6a0115704a1242970c01676924ef53970b-800wi
http://carolineplusben.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/wpid3472-kayla-austin-bridal-session-at-capitol-and-flamingo-farm-1.jpg
http://www.kurtleblanc.com/blog/image.axd?picture=8721-Luke-Watermark-CW_thumb.jpg
http://brettharknessphotography.com/training/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/orignial.jpg

I could keep going...but, you get the idea...lol...even if you end up selling it, thank you for helping me to appreciate mine a bit more


----------



## pedro (Apr 20, 2013)

I purchased my 16-35 II in March this year. Used. CHF 998 instead of CHF 1400 online or 1998 retail. The lens is in excellent shape. As I had a 10-22 on my 30D I wanted to get back to a classic WA on the 5D3! It is almost my walkaround lens. Again! 8) Here's some first samples



Z96A3724bMASTER by Peter Hauri, on Flickr




Z96A3597bALTTLKLEINDefMASTER by Peter Hauri, on Flickr




Z96A3584b KELIN ALT2TLDEF by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
note: the photograph is upside down, the lake was used as kinda natural polifilter ;-)


----------



## infared (Apr 20, 2013)

I know but I have a short period of time here before my extra photo money will run out so I was trying to get some gear Before I am wanting a lens I can no longer afford. I love my sigma 35mm now that I mfa it the iq is awesome. I am just having a hard time creatively with the 16-35.

UAW lenses are the most challenging lenses to compose images with...but also the most rewarding. With experience you will get a feel for it. Many times it is helpful that you have a foreground element that leads you into the shot...read up on it and get some experience...I just gets better! (For instance the DJ shots on page two he uses the platter to "pull you in" to the DJ)...the shots are dynamic and almost have a feel of motion to them.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 20, 2013)

http://flic.kr/p/ecFDqf

This is a shot of my cat trying to find a use. It is nice but as a previous post said. I think I am a 24mm and above guy. I just like the 24-300mm range. So maybe a 100mm Macro or the 70-300l for vacations is in my future. Either way I am just not feeling very inspired. I will return it and take a long look at do I even need anything right now. I can say I rented an 1.4 extender and did like the extra 80mm reach. So maybe that 70-300mm l is my calling for outdoors summer shots with the kids and also wildlife even though 300mm for birds is nothing.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 21, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I bought the 16-35L II several years ago because the sale price was too good to pass up. I didn't use it much for about a year. Finally I decided I had to learn how to use this lens so I went out regularly with only the 5DII and the 16-35 lens. That forced me to work out how to use the lens.
> 
> At first I was a bit frustrated because you have to look at things differently in order to see the shot opportunity. Many of the best Photojournalism shots are taken with this lens, or other ultra-wides. Check out:
> http://bit.ly/Yj8uzu
> ...



Nice story. I think I prefer fast telephotos to UWA's...and yet I like doing landscape...wildlife...sometimes people. I guess I don't know what kind of photographer I am. I know l like being able to go really wide, medium, or even really long...sometimes macro.

The only time I've been published (so far) in a national magazine, was a landscape wide angle shot (a mere Sigma 17-70mm)...of the night sky. If it had been daytime in the same location, it never would have been noticed. It was at home in my front yard in Tennessee...rather than in Yosemite...or...the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Mt. Kilimanjaro, Namibia, Madagascar, Alaska, Antarctica, Greenland...a fjord...the ISS...etc. But I think I would like those places too.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 21, 2013)

Stewbyyy said:


> Not with the 16-35mm but with a 10-20mm Sigma on a 1D Mark IIN. I feel it's relevant as it shows how an UWA lens can be utilised with people.
> 
> I adore UWA lenses, I love the way they put subjects into context. It's all about getting close when you use a UWA. Not always something liked by photographers, especially those who prefer to stay discrete.



Very nice shot!! Trying to guess exposure time...1 1/2 seconds?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 21, 2013)

Follow up. I spent the weekend looking at different uwa perspectives and it just is not my cup of tea right now. I definetly am going for more reach and some other things I need like a good tripod and remote trigger.


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 22, 2013)

After reading through this thread, I got inspired to take my 16-35mm with me over the weekend to a Tae Kwon Do tournament that my children participated in. I'm glad I took it, even though I only used it for a few shots.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 23, 2013)

I got the 17-40mm....I found a good used one for like $500 I think and figure that would hold me till I went for a 16-35 later.

But honestly, I love the lens, this and my 24-105 are usually my daytime walk around lenses. 

I actually wanted something even more UWA to play with, and got the rokinon 14mm...which is about the last on the edge of rectilinear.

that thing is WIIIIIDE...but has proven for something relatively inexpensive (I caught a special sale for like $199 I think?)....it is a LOT of fun to play with. And for $25 I found a program to correct for the problems the lens is knowns to have. But I've had a LOT of fun playing with this UWA lens, and the 17-40mm, is quite easy to walk around with and use.

My next lens..I'm debating between the 24mm tilt shift, or a 50mm L f 1.2.....I'm leaning towards the 24mm TS here lately, I like the wide angle stuff.

My $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 24, 2013)

Hi I hired the efs 10-22 for a special job I used the lens on my 40d which gives about the range you are querying, a friend has a camp site that is also well stocked with static caravans and he wanted interior shots of the different models to help customers choose which to rent, I did use the lens for a couple of days to get to know it a bit. For the job it was used mostly fully wide as there is no room to take a step back though some shots did require zooming in slightly to get a better frame. If this is not the sort of thing you do I guess that you may not find a need for it. I have it on my wish list as although I don't need it I did like the abilities of this lens over the normal 17-85 when I was trying it out, people, landscapes, pets seem to pop more, and the creative abilities are there if only I was creative.

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 24, 2013)

Yeah i returned it and afterusing it. I felt getting the 70-300l was something I knew i could use. I go on a lot of trips where I could use the reach and while slower than my 70-200 2.8. I think it offers the lighter travel lens that i was looking for but still retaining good IQ. It just felt odd buying the same focal length but both will serve their purpose. Thanks again for everyone's input.


----------

