Canon EF 16-35mm L USM Lens

Paul Tomlinson

Paul Tomlinson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
400
Name
Paul Tomlinson
Edit My Images
No
Is anyone useing one of these lenses i hope to buy at the end of next week i could do with views on this lens before i buy.

What type of photography is this lens aimed at??.:thumbs:
 
first off there are two versions - mk1 and mk2 - the mk2 is better but uses a non standard filter size - may be important to you.

you may find when you have the 16-35 that the 24-70 is not used much - may be a good time to trade it in for a 50 1.4 or 50 1.2 for low light work.


"What type of photography is this lens aimed at"
that a hard question to answer

what do you want it to do?
 
The lens is the mk 2 at f/2.8, i think the lens would come in handy for partys and weddings you know close up shots of people in groups talking, candid shot and group photos, What lens would you recommend if this is not suitable for the job.
 
Paul Tomlinson said:
The lens is the mk 2 at f/2.8, i think the lens would come in handy for partys and weddings you know close up shots of people in groups talking, candid shot and group photos, What lens would you recommend if this is not suitable for the job.
Click to expand...

should work fine - if low light is not an issue then you could also consider the 17-40 f4, and save weight and cost. There is a very (very)small difference in quality at f5.6

at parties you may find that the main problem is focus and for that a lens with f1.2 /f1.4 is the only answer
 
sportysnaps said:
should work fine - if low light is not an issue then you could also consider the 17-40 f4, and save weight and cost. There is a very (very)small difference in quality at f5.6

at parties you may find that the main problem is focus and for that a lens with f1.2 /f1.4 is the only answer
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, what i will do is take a look at some of the other lenses to see which one will suit me better.:thumbs:
 
With a wide-angle lens such as the 16-35mm, for group shots, anyone close to the edge of the frame will be distorted. It's more suited for exaggerated perspectives and landscape shots. I have the Mk I version. For low light people shots, 50mm f/1.4 would be a better bet - or maybe Sigma's 30mm f/1.4, as you have a crop body.
 
marky_h said:
With a wide-angle lens such as the 16-35mm, for group shots, anyone close to the edge of the frame will be distorted. It's more suited for exaggerated perspectives and landscape shots. I have the Mk I version. For low light people shots, 50mm f/1.4 would be a better bet - or maybe Sigma's 30mm f/1.4, as you have a crop body.
Click to expand...

How about the EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM this lens would do ok for people and group shots.
 
combat squirrel said:
Out of curiosity, why are you spending that much on a lens without being sure what you want it to do ?, I can just make out your wanting indoor group shots, it just seems abit like your not very sure and spending for spendings sake ?
Click to expand...

It will be used for a lot more than just groups and indoor stuff and you maybe right about the spending for spending sake, i have a need for a wide angle lens.

It dont hurt to ask questions thats what this forums all about, if you have some advice to give and it is all good advice you are giving then all well and good.

cheers:thumbs:
 
Paul Tomlinson said:
How about the EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM this lens would do ok for people and group shots.
Click to expand...

This is also called the "shifty 50" as they (all?) have front/back-focusing issues at or near wide open and at distances of 1-1.5m.

This sounds like pretty much where and how you would be using yours:shrug:

Paul Tomlinson said:
I have a 24-70mm L f/2.8 so would there be any need to buy a 50mm len
Click to expand...

YES! f/1.4 1.8 2.0 etc:D

sportysnaps said:
the 50mm 1.2 is a lot more expensive then the 50mm 1.4
Click to expand...

And given the fact that you might well (almost certainly) be buying issues, hardly worth it IMHO...
 
Could also be f/2-f/4 but still it is on the wide open end where the OP would likely be using it.

At the price you pay for this lens one would expect flawless performance...

Also worth noting is the bad lateral high contrast fringing / Chromatic aberration...see the review on photozone;)
 
Re the EF 50mm f/1.2 L ...
blinkerz said:
i thought the shift was only between roughly (f2-f4) , there are alot of people reporting after a certain date code that this problem has been fixed...
Click to expand...
antonroland said:
Could also be f/2-f/4 but still it is on the wide open end where the OP would likely be using it.
Click to expand...
The focusssing problems experienced with this lens are a result of the compromises which were made in its design. It is only apparent with subject distances of around 1-1.5m and at apertures around f/2 to f/4. It is not an issue wide open. (Canon ensured that it does work at f/1.2, which is the whole point of the lens.)

blinkerz, I'd like to see some references to reports (and not from numpties) that it has been fixed. I don't think that's possible without a wholesale redesign.
Paul Tomlinson said:
How about the EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM this lens would do ok for people and group shots.
Click to expand...
Yes it would be OK. To photograph people and groups you will be more than 1.5m away from them, and the focussing issues will not occur.

But I agree with the others that, unless you really need f/1.2 or you really need the slightly superior image quality, the 50mm f/1.2 L is poor value for money comparted to the 50mm f/1.4.
 
PS ... Here is a very detailed review of the 50mm f/1.2 L vs the 50mm f/1.4. Draw your own conclusions.
 
i have a 16-35 mk2 f2.8 l lens. i use it as a walkabout landscape lens, it is very very good imho and i like it a lot. i also take it if i need a wide angle zoom in the bag and i don't find the distortion too bad when shooting groups of people. it's certainly better than the 17-40 in that respect.

i think you'll enjoy it, but it's not the cheapest lens out there.

maybe a 17-40 and a 50mm f1.4 would be a better use of your money, and you'd still have about 200quid in your hip pocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top