Advice on FF please

W

winterlight

Suspended / Banned
Messages
101
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I am new to the forum but have been using a Canon 350D and then 550D for a few years. My main interest are landscape and some family photos. I am thinking on upgrading to a full frame camera but have heard that the Canon 16-35mm has some corner sharpness issues. Currently I am using the Canon 10-16mm which seem to be very good. Anyone has done a comparison?

WL
 
Welcome!

Canon 10-16??

Do you mean 10-22?
 
The 16-35 is a pretty high end lens for what sounds like enthusiast/amateur use.
Have you considered the 17-40?
Much cheaper and - I think - considered by many to be optically superior to the 16-35. For landscapes I wouldn't see that you'd have any need for the extra speed of the 16-35.
 
WL,

I have and use the 17-40 on a ff 5dMk2 and find it great for both portraits and landscapes. If I need a narrower dof for portraits I switch to a 50mm f1.9

Cheers

Rob
 
Corner sharpness of 17-40 is pants, and distortion is bad at 17mm. 16-35mm II is probably slightly better in that respect, but I heard it needs good stopping down too. I can't quite commit to one of these lenses; I keep using Tokina 12-24mm on FF.

Probably Nikon 16-35 f/4 is the best affordable pro uwa zoom at the moment. I see that it doesn't help, but maybe Canon will play catch-up soon in the future.
 
I would agree with the 17-40mm notion. The 16-35mm, while allowing more light through is probably about on par with the 17-40mm but at quite a higher cost.

Also to the OP, if you meant you own a 10-22mm lens then it wouldn't be compatible with any of Canon's FF options as it's an EF-S len and as such only work on Canon crop cameras unfortunately.
 
daugirdas said:
Corner sharpness of 17-40 is pants, and distortion is bad at 17mm. 16-35mm II is probably slightly better in that respect, but I heard it needs good stopping down too. I can't quite commit to one of these lenses; I keep using Tokina 12-24mm on FF.

Probably Nikon 16-35 f/4 is the best affordable pro uwa zoom at the moment. I see that it doesn't help, but maybe Canon will play catch-up soon in the future.
Click to expand...

Sorry to sound like a sceptic but I find it funny how you're able to offer such definite opinion on the 17-40, then surmise about the 16-35 then admit that you own(have owned) neither.
 
Last edited:
I can't comment on the 16-35, but do have a 17-40 on my 5Dii which I use alot for landscapes. I can't say I've ever noticed a lack of corner sharpness on my shots - my copy is a blindingly sharp lens and love it. At 1/3 - 1/2 the cost of the 16-35 it should be a consideration.

I wouldn't let a little corner softness put you off going full frame though - can't remember ever looking at any landscape shots and thinking, 'oh boy, those corners are a bit soft'! However, going full frame will add something else to your shots.:thumbs:
 
THanks for the advice. I am leaning towards a 17-40 for cost reasons... but the cheapest option is to be happy with what already have. Are the pictures with the 17-40mm on the 5D Mk2 likely to be a lot better than a Canon 10-22 on the 550D. I wonder if someone has tried both?

Cheers

WL
 
I haven't owned the 10-22mm so can't comment but going by comments made over various forums they seem fairly similar in performance.
 
fixedimage said:
Sorry to sound like a sceptic but I find it funny how you're able to offer such definite opinion on the 17-40, then surmise about the 16-35 then admit that you own(have owned) neither.
Click to expand...

I haven't owned either, but I had used 17-40 on a couple occasions so I have enough knowledge. I wasn't impressed with one even on 30D at 17mm
 
If you are interested in a cheapo option I have a Canon 20-35mm, and I have no complaints in fact I like it as it's a very compact lens and has lovely fast USM focus.

I bought mine used, I forget how much it was but it was something between £100 and £150 from Ffordes.
 
winterlight said:
THanks for the advice. I am leaning towards a 17-40 for cost reasons... but the cheapest option is to be happy with what already have. Are the pictures with the 17-40mm on the 5D Mk2 likely to be a lot better than a Canon 10-22 on the 550D. I wonder if someone has tried both?

Cheers

WL
Click to expand...

I've had the 10-22 on a 40D, and very nice it was too. But a 17-40L on full frame is obviously better. Considerably better, as full frame always is :thumbs:

I don't know where some other posters get their views, but if you want a super-wide on a 5D2 then there is nothing better than a 17-40L or 16-35L MkII, and that's a fact (MkI version isn't so good).

Six of one, half dozen of the other really, just one does f/2.8 and costs loads of money, and the other doesn't. You really have to need f/2.8 quite badly IMHO.
 
woof woof said:
If you are interested in a cheapo option I have a Canon 20-35mm, and I have no complaints in fact I like it as it's a very compact lens and has lovely fast USM focus.

I bought mine used, I forget how much it was but it was something between £100 and £150 from Ffordes.
Click to expand...

I owned one on crop, where it performed really well. FF is a different matter though it is not that good anymore in the corners (loads of CA and bad distortion)
 
I must be lucky. It seems to work well on mine, but mine is a real raw camera :) so maybe it's different.
 
I have a 17-40 L on a 5D1 and I'm very happy with it.
I've no been a Canon user long so don't have heaps of lens use under my belt but I came to Canon from owning a Nikon D3 and a 24-70mm AF-S G and while there is a difference in focal range so a direct comparison can't really be made I'd say the 17-40 outperforms the Nikon 24-70. Apart from anything optical, the 17-40 focuses quicker and more silently than the Nikon lens did.
I haven't looked hard at the corners of the images from either lens but obviously the brides and newspapers that have paid me for my images either haven't done so either or didn't see anything to complain about so I'm happy.
If you want to see a bad lens y'all need to go and shoot an old 24-120mm Nikon lens on a full frame camera for a day. After that you'd be glad of a bit of card with a pinhole in it!

Daugirdas, I didn't mean to pick on your comment so much, there just seems to be a lot of people willing to offer opinion on kit they have never used.
 
winterlight said:
Hi,

I am new to the forum but have been using a Canon 350D and then 550D for a few years. My main interest are landscape and some family photos. I am thinking on upgrading to a full frame camera but have heard that the Canon 16-35mm has some corner sharpness issues. Currently I am using the Canon 10-16mm which seem to be very good. Anyone has done a comparison?

WL
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think most wide angle lenses have some corner issues. And for the 16-35, its a fast aperture lens so I think u may want to stop it down to say f9 to get the unsharp corner sharp. And comparing the 10-22 n 17-40 to the 16-35, the 16-35 is a complete winner in my opinion.
 
Perhaps getting away from the OP but for me the 17-40 is one of those lenses that has stood the test of time.

As a wide FF or wide (ish) crop - it's a belter.

Lack of IS isn't an issue with a tripod and f4 isn't even required most of the time.
 
Thanks very much for all your advice. One of my friend has a 5D 2 which I intend to take some pictures with and compare before I spend quite a lot more on a FF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top