Anyone used the 16-35mm L f/2.6?

8utters

8utters

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,449
Edit My Images
Yes
Thinking of this for my next lens, anyone got one or have used one?

I really need one that has a nice apature of under 3, this fits my requirements well, even if it's really expensive (about £800).

I'm also looking at the 24-70 but the 16-35 is wider, and I need a wide lens.
 
I have the 16-35 2.8L II......had the original one previously.
 
If you mean the 16-35 f2.8 L, then yes I've had a play with one to see it was really worth the extra money over my 17-40 f4.

In short, I decided it wasn't worth it for me. The extra stop is nice and the extra 1mm on the wide end is noticeable, if not much gain but it's not really any sharper. Perhaps that's because the 17-40 is pretty sharp anyway, except perhaps at the 40mm end but you don't get that anyway on the 16-35.

It really comes down to how much is the extra stop worth to you. It's certainly a more exclusive bit of glass than the f4, that could be worth something to some. ;)
 
Im not really looking for the sharpest, I just assumed all L lenses were around the same quality wise.

Probably gonna go for this 16-35, looks awesome.

P-E: what are your thoughts on this lens? Is it worth spending a bit more for the newer version?
 
I looked at the equivalent Nikon lens, ie the 17-55mm f/2.8 throughout. From what I've read, the Sigma 18-50mm HSM f/2.8 is almost as good, but at a third of the price.
 
and the tamron 17-50 f2.8 better still
 
I went for the 17-40 f4L and since it normally gets shot at f8 I dont think I really would of seen much use out of the extra stop.
 
A fast wide is potentially pretty fruity for low light handheld stuff, but if that aint your bag then you're not likely to see that much use out of it over something like the 17-40L :)

I'd personally love a full frame ~ 15mm fast prime. Still, that's where nice fast ~ 50mm medium format lenses come in :thumbs:
 
chewyuk said:
I was doing exactly the same, but ended up going in for the 17-40, because it's half the price...
Click to expand...

Yeah i'd get the 17-40 if it wasen't for it's f/4. I need a 2.8, i'v got a 3.5 at the moment, it's ok, but a 2.8 is great for what I need.

Also - can someone tell me what's better about the 16-35 Mk2 over the original version?
 
Ohhh yeah the Mk2 looks much better.

Sadly it's a bit expensive, like £800. Still undecided, might go for th 24-70, it's like £200 cheaper.
 
I'v decided to go for the 17-40mm f/4 L - the others are just too expensive.

There are a few going on eBay for under £400 aswel, seems like a good deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top