16-35 on a crop - tell me it's okay!!

[Daoust]

I just rented a 16-35 lens for two weeks, kind of by accident. I backed out of the sale (or so I thought) but apparently it went through, and even though I could still have backed out, I said 'what the heck, I might as well try it' and rented it anyway.

Now, all I've read since is that I made a dumb move, that instead I should have got the 17-55, or the 10-22.

All I want is for someone to say "you know what? You can shoot nice things with a 16-35 on a crop, it's actually not that limited!"

So, can anyone tell me that, honestly? Can you prove it?

Thanks in advance.

[Elmo]

75% of what I shoot on a crop sensor is in that range.

[asoupley]

I agree. I shoot quite a bit in that range on a crop. Quit worrying about it and have fun!

[irispatch]

It is a great lens and like the others I use the range a great deal.

[jdepould]

That's a pretty normal range for a crop sensor, something like 24-120 IIRC.

[RichardTaylor]

Not exactly 24-120 (in 35mm/full frame terms)
More like 24 - 52 (in 35mm/full frame terms)
.

I don't have that lens, however if you like shooting wideish (not ultrawide) you will love it. I shoot a lot in that range for city streets and some 'scapes.

Examples form our last big vacation all taken with a full frame camera..

(1) 32mm


(2) At 35mm


(3) at 45mm


(4) @ 24mm


As others have said enjoy your new lens.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by jdepould

That's a pretty normal range for a crop sensor, something like 24-120 IIRC.

16-35, not 85.

[Daoust]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I'm feeling much better about this lens now. I got it yesterday and haven't tried it out yet, but can't wait.

Thanks for sharing those pictures, Richard. That's the most helpful thing for me; to be able to actually see what it can do, more than just hearing about the number range, which, really, is hard for me to visualize.

[gturner]

I often use a 17-40 L on a crop.

You don't say what you want to use it for?

[inkista]

People are telling you you wasted your money on a two week rental? Crikey. Rentals are exactly the time you try out the eccentric non-obvious combinations, like a 16-35 f/2L on a crop body.

They'd have a point, if you were purchasing the lens. The 17-40L, 10-22, or 17-55 would be a better fit for a lower budget or crop body-only usage for most people, given how high the pricetag on a 16-35 f/2.8L II is and its designed for purpose of being an ultrawide on a full-frame, and how many complaints there are about it from those who own it (they basically just moan it's not a Nikon 14-24). But paying $1600 for a lens sets your standards at a completely different level than blowing $100 or so on a rental.

The 10-22 and 17-40 don't do f/2.8. The 17-55 doesn't have L build. The 16-35 II is an L. Enjoy it, shoot the hell out of it, and have fun with it. You didn't waste your money.

BTW, Richard's examples aren't from the 16-35L. They're from his 24-105 on his full frame, showing you how those same focal lengths are still useful. You might want to check out actual 16-35 II samples, here....

http://pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=27
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=411156

Make sure to check whether the images are on a crop body or a 5D, though. the pixel-peeper link will let you specify the camera body used with the lens--it's feeding off Flickr images that are lens-tagged. Also, be sure you're not looking at 16-35 Mark I images. The Mark I wasn't as sharp as the Mark II.