Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM

[JeffSmith]

Does anyone here own this lens?

I'm looking at this one and comparing it with the EF 17-40 f/4.0 L. Obviously there's a stop difference, but I'm more interested in the image quality.

Have you owned the 17-40 and upgraded to the 16-35? If so, is it worth the difference in cost? Is the image quality any sharper?

Any feedback will be most appreciated.

regards

[inkista]

Here's a side-by-side on dpreview.

Just don't look at the 16-35 side-by-side with the Nikon 14-24 on 16:9.

[JeffSmith]

Thanks Inkista, that Nikon looks good doesn't it! I had no idea Nikon lenses fit Canon, does anyone have this Nikon lens on a Canon 5D MKII?

[inkista]

Hey, I told you not to look!

Well, "fits" for certain PITA values of fits. The main problem here is that the 14-24 is a G lens--like Canon EOS lenses, it has no aperture ring. And there's no electronic linkage between the lens and the camera, so that generally means you have to shoot with the lens wide open all the time. The only adapter that will let you control the aperture is the one the folks who did that test came up with, which uses a mechanical linkage to control the aperture. It costs $230 and when you're going to receive it if you order it is anyone's guess, as it's more of a hobby than a business.

Most of the Nikon->EOS adapters you'll see out there are mostly for Nikon F lenses, where the lens still has an aperture ring.

Because of the lack of electronic linkage you also lose autofocus, wide-open metering, and the ability to shoot in any modes other than full manual and aperture priority. So, it's not for the faint of heart.

The Fred Miranda Alternative Gear board will probably have a ton of 5D samples with the 14-24, but remember, those guys are on the bleeding edge of adapting lenses. Some of them are nuts enough to rip the mounts off Canon FD L lenses, and Minolta MDs and machine new ones to get them onto their EOS cameras.

I'd probably still go for the 16-35 II... it's definitely the path of least resistance.

[JeffSmith]

Well that rules the Nikon out, I prefer the simple route, life's hard enough

As for the 17-40 or 16-35, I gather that the 17-40 is a tad sharper but is of course it's f/4.0 as opposed to f/2.8. As it's a wide angle and my plan is to use it for landsacpe and panos, f/2.8 isn't going to figure in my reckoning so I'm leaning toward the 17-40; epecially as it's 77mm as opposed to 82mm, which would incur a new filter system.

Decisions, decisions!

[CaptainNH]

If you don't need shallow DoF, I would stick with the 17-40. It does appear a little sharper than the 16-35, but that's probably because I've only ever seen the 16-35 used wide open.

I have been looking at replacing my 17-40 with something faster, because I can't get the shallow DoF that I would like for some wedding shots - I've been looking at the 24mm f/1.4L II for that one though.

For landscapes, I don't think you'll go far wrong with the f4, it does barrel a bit wide open on the 5D2, but nothing that can't be easily fixed in PS.