# New Lens Suggestion Please



## zhaoqingMal (Dec 21, 2016)

Hi all,

I'm planning on buying myself a new lens for Christmas (the wife bank manager has agreed that I can get one ;D), and I'm after some advice about which to buy to pair with my 7D. As I'm after a UWA zoom, that narrows it down pretty much to three lenses (based on budget). My choices are:

16-35 f/4L IS
16-35 f/2.8L II
17-40 f/4L
As much as I'd love the new 16-35 2.8, I simply cannot afford it. I also have absolutely no interest in buying an EF-S lens as I will be upgrading to FF within a year or so and I don't want to buy a lens simply to trade it in very soon.

My use-case is landscapes, but also I have to admit that the 2.8 would probably come in handy for school classroom events that I tend to photograph. I'd also potentially like to try some astro work, but that's not a factor in this decision due to my current location and access to anywhere without light pollution. IS isn't that big a deal for me as I am fairly steady, but on the other hand that new f/4 looks razor sharp.

My only concern with the 2.8 is that I've heard it can be fairly soft, as with the 17-40. I'm not a pixel peeper by any means, but I do appreciated image quality.

I'd love to try these lenses out too, but my location and the efficiency of the Chinese postal system leaves me in a position where I can't return a lens unless it is actually faulty, and rental is not an option here. Hence this post asking for suggestions.

Thanks in advance, and Merry Christmas to all!
Malcolm


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 21, 2016)

Simple question: is the f2.8 affordable or not? If not then any uses it has photographing classroom events are irrelevant. 

So your choice is 16-35 or 17-40. 
One thing to bear in mind is that any talk of softness on the 17-40 is about softness at the edges which means it will be almost irrelevant on the crop-sensor 7D. You will only see any difference (as much as it exists) when you buy that FF camera.

The 17-40 has been a staple of landscape photographers for at least 12 years so any talk of softness are, IMO, in comparison to the 16-35 rather than being a problem when the images are seen in isolation. If I could afford it I would always go for a lens with IS. But I am sure you will not be disappointed by the 17-40.

Second question: are you the sort of person who (like me) would make a rational decision to buy the 17-40 then soon regret not buying what you believe is the sharper lens (even if those failings are more perceived than real)? How much is peace of mind worth?

One option is to buy a second hand 17-40, then save up for the 16-35 f2.8 II and sell the 17-40 knowing you will not lose much on the deal. This would, of course, depend on spending limits imposed by said banker.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 21, 2016)

Hi Malcolm! 

+1 to almost anything Mikehit already said.

You have to ask yourself if you really need f2.8. 

If not and if you can afford it, go for the 16-35/4 IS. 
It would be my lens of choice and best in class for your main purpose: landscape.

If you want to save on budget the 17-40 would still be a really good choice with big advantages in price and size at the expense of losing 5 - 10 % potential IQ.


----------



## zhaoqingMal (Dec 21, 2016)

Thanks for the quick reply.



Mikehit said:


> Simple question: is the f2.8 affordable or not? If not then any uses it has photographing classroom events are irrelevant.


The 2.8 v2 is affordable, yes. The new v3 is way above my budget though.



Mikehit said:


> Second question: are you the sort of person who (like me) would make a rational decision to buy the 17-40 then soon regret not buying what you believe is the sharper lens (even if those failings are more perceived than real)? How much is peace of mind worth?


Good question. Probably, yes. Either I've been lucky with camera gear, or unlucky with other cheap stuff. My Yongnuo flashes and 28-135 are still going strong after 2 years, but my strikeout rate with other household goods is pretty miserable (I've had issues over 50% of the time!) I cannot figure it out whether I'm lucky or unlucky!



Mikehit said:


> One option is to buy a second hand 17-40, then save up for the 16-35 f2.8 II and sell the 17-40 knowing you will not lose much on the deal. This would, of course, depend on spending limits imposed by said banker.


I really wish that was an option, but unfortunately it isn't. I'm a foreigner living in a small Chinese city, and therefore have too many issues with being able to do this. Even if we discount the language barrier, I almost certainly would be cheated in any transaction with anybody other than a reputable retailer (which don't have second hand gear in my area, since they're more like Best Buy). My only other choice is Amazon China. Even though I know almost all of the tricks that the Chinese use to make foreigners pay more, there is always one that slips under my radar, and I can guarantee that whoever I tried to buy something from would try that one trick that I don't know yet!

Thanks for the advice,
Malcolm


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 21, 2016)

I understand your cynicism regards buying/selling in Asia, and even though it seems you are overplaying it you have to be comfortable when high-value items are concerned (the same reason I don't buy high-value from ebay etc). 

If the 16-35 MkII is within your budget you need to play off the f2.8 vs the f4 being sharper. In shots for classroom events are you after the f2.8 for background blur or for shutter speed? If you get a 5DIII or 5DIV then you can shoot up to ISO 25,000 which means the f2.8 may well be less important. If it is for background blur in the confines of a classroom how much difference will f2.8 really make? Will it be anything other than a record shot?

My choice, based on comparative reviews and MTF charts would be the f4 but my uses may well be different to yours.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2016)

In your case, I'd go with the 16-35/4 IS. I owned the 16-35/2.8 II, it's a good lens but IMO the f/4 IS is better for your primary use. Also, moving to FF will gain you more than a stop of lower noise for indoor use. 

As an aside, none of those lenses will be a UWA zoom until you get the FF camera.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> In your case, I'd go with the 16-35/4 IS. I owned the 16-35/2.8 II, it's a good lens but IMO the f/4 IS is better for your primary use. Also, moving to FF will gain you more than a stop of lower noise for indoor use.
> 
> As an aside, none of those lenses will be a UWA zoom until you get the FF camera.



+1. I add a flash for school classroom event scenarios, and I'd probably do the same even with a f/2.8 lens. IS is nice for non-people shots because it can allow a larger drop in ISO.

The bigger question is whether or not it makes more sense to move to FF first. Most people use the normal range a lot more than the UWA range.


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 21, 2016)

I own the 16-35mm f/4L IS and am extremely happy with it. I thought about "upgrading" to the newest F/2.8, but the 4 stop loss in the corners was just too much. If I had no lenses in this range and had to buy something, I would certainly buy the 16-35mm f/4L IS all over again. It handles well on my 7D2.


----------



## tron (Dec 21, 2016)

I strongly suggest that you get 16-35 f/4L IS (it is a superb landscape lens) with a FF camera stuck behind it ;D

It will just be more expensive than the plain lens 

You can also sell your 7D and get some money back...


----------



## WRS (Dec 21, 2016)

I'd also highly recommend the 16-35 F/4L IS. Maybe I have an exceptionally bad copy of the 16-35 F/2.8L II, but I just can't stand that lens. For me mine was always extremely soft in the corners despite having sent it into Canon to get checked out. With the 1DXII I've done some astro pictures with the F4 and have been really pleased with the results. 

If as you said you will plan on upgrading to FF within the next year I wouldn't worry too much about the loss of 1 stop. The IS may come in handy for you if you do any video as well.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> As an aside, none of those lenses will be a UWA zoom until you get the FF camera.



My thoughts exactly. 16mm is equivalent to just over 25mm on a crop sensor, so it's more of a standard wide angle than a ultra wide angle. 17mm is close to 28mm equivalent.

My experience is that at the long end, it makes sense to buy full frame lenses with a crop camera. But, that's not the case with wide angle lenses. You end up carrying around a lot of extra weight and size and still don't have a true ultra wide angle. 

If you are absolutely certain that you are moving to full frame, then I get it. But, if you are planning to keep the 7D, you might want to consider getting an ultra wide angle to match. The Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 is an excellent ultra wide angle that can be had for just under $500 in the U.S. (Don't know about China).

If you are moving to full frame, I would join others in recommending the 16-35 f4 IS. With the wide angle lens, the IS vs. an extra stop is pretty much a wash unless you are shooting sports or other fast action.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2016)

unfocused said:


> But, if you are planning to keep the 7D, you might want to consider getting an ultra wide angle to match. The Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 is an excellent ultra wide angle that can be had for just under $500 in the U.S. (Don't know about China).



The Canon 10-18mm is just over half that price. Slower, but good IQ. 

OP, if you can afford the 16-35/2.8 II, consider that the 10-18mm plus the 16-35/4L IS may come out to around the same cost.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > But, if you are planning to keep the 7D, you might want to consider getting an ultra wide angle to match. The Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 is an excellent ultra wide angle that can be had for just under $500 in the U.S. (Don't know about China).
> ...



True. I find the constant f2.8 aperture more appealing (I own the older version, but it is on permanent loan to my son-in-law), but others may not. At any rate, there are a number of good Canon and third-party crop sensor ultrawides and most are generally considered to have good image quality.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2016)

unfocused said:


> The Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 is an excellent ultra wide angle that can be had for just under $500 in the U.S. (Don't know about China).


Agreed! for a crop camera, you really need 11mm to go ultrawide and the Tokina is a decent lens and a fast lens....


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 21, 2016)

Here's my suggestion for you. Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II from the Canon store for about $1,087 regular $1,899 or so. Brand new, not refurbished.
http://www.canonrumors.com/deal-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii-1087-reg-1899/

The 16-35 f/4L is supposed to be very excellent if you don't need f/2.8. $999 for the f/4L at B&H. From what I've seen everyone write, the f/4L is super sharp.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 21, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 is an excellent ultra wide angle that can be had for just under $500 in the U.S. (Don't know about China).
> ...



Yes, but says he's going full frame soon.


----------



## zhaoqingMal (Dec 22, 2016)

Thanks everybody for the suggestions. I've been persuaded that the 16-35 f4 is the one to go for. I was leaning slightly that way when I originally posted, but the comments here have tipped me this way. Now to persuade the bank manager to relinquish the credit card for half an hour ;D

Thanks,
Malcolm


----------



## tron (Dec 22, 2016)

Excellent choice! Now about that "accessory" in the back of the lens... ;D


----------

