16-35 2.8 mark II or 17-55 2.8

Has anyone used the 16-35 mark II? How does it compare to the 17-55?

YES. A lot more favorable.

I'm wondering the same thing myself

I have an opportunity to get one UV with the filter for $900. I get to test it out and the current owner says its mint. I assume I should take it or at least look at it?

UV meaning the date plus a UV filter.

Tommy, I'm lost. What are you going to look at?

Ken,

Why do you say "A lot more favorable". I tested the 16-35mII in a store and didn't see any improvement over my 17-55. My copy of the 17-55 was great on my 40D, so what's more favorable in a 16-35mII?

"Tommy, I'm lost. What are you going to look at?"

I am going to test out the 16-35 mark II and possibly purchase it if its the shape he claims its in.

I would not buy a 16-35 for a 40D having a 17-55 (I have the 16-35 for 5D), but I don't have the EF-S lens. But Tommy, you know all this. You are an resercher. Anyway, if it is a bargain, you always can sell one of the two lenses.

I read in a thread that you had a 5D. This can change the things.

Sorry I am not being very clean in my question. I have a 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 and I am considering either a 17-55 or a 16- 35. I found a guy selling his like new ( date code UV ) 16-35 MII for $900. I was hoping to get some opinions about what lens to get either: The 16-35 lists for $1450 new so it seems like a good deal?

A. New 17-55 2.8 $1000

B Used 16-35 M2 $900

Camera is a 40D. Again sorry for the poor wording.

If you could get a Mint/Like New copy of the mark II for $900 then snatch it up.

A. New 17-55 2.8 $1000

B Used 16-35 M2 $900- It's an L and a better deal.

Tommy;

16 or 17 isn't all that wide on a 40D do to the crop factor. And 24 isn't wide at all. Given the lenses you have, I would suggest a 10-22.

Whatever lens you are looking at you have to multiply the number by 1.6 to get the 35mm equivalent focal length. So your 24-105 is really 39 at the wide end. And 17 is only 28. So the 10-22 would be like 16 at the wide end, that's pretty wide.

I think either the lenses you are considering would be a bit redundant. Now if you had a 5D full frame sensor (no 1.6cx crop factor) then you'd want the 16-35 for your wide.

Also, these two lenses are in meant to be in different ranges. The 16-35 is a UWA for FF. The 17-55 is meant to be a standard zoom (comprable to the 24-105 FF).

Hope that made sense.

I have NOT used either, so I guess you could say that I'm completely unbiased. :-)

There are a lot of good reasons to consider the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS if you shoot a crop sensor body.

The image quality actually looks to be quite good based on reviews and tests that I've seen. One great source is slrgear.com where test results are accompanied by some very useful and informative interactive "blur index charts." In two separate windows or tabs, open the test results for the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II. Next open the "blur index charts" for the two lenses by clicking the little 3-D charts shown on the right side of each page. Position the two small blur index windows so that you can see the two of them at once and compare performance at the same apertures and the same/similar focal lengths. (Both sets of tests were done on a cropped sensor 20D.)

The differences are actually quite astonishing. Compare, especially, the large aperture performance at the 35mm focal length. It is hard to argue - at least based on these tests - that the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is anything but a great optical performer.

In addition, it provides a larger focal length range and image stabilization. (Those of us shooting full frame can only wish that would Canon produce an equivalent full frame lens - it would perform as well, got to f/2.8, include IS, and cover a focal length range from about 27mm to about 90mm.)

My purpose is not to put down the very fine 16-35mm f/2.8 II lens, but to perhaps point out that things are a bit more "interesting" here than you might expect.

Dan

Who, if he shot a cropped sensor camera these days, would run right out and pick up the EFS 17-55.

"My copy of the 17-55 was great on my 40D, so what's more favorable in a 16-35 Mark II?"

Everything? It's better at everything. Versatile. Fast. Sealed, pro, not EF-S. The OP didn't mention I.S. version of the EF-S lens. IS in a wide is pretty much wasted.

Stick with the L series, the 16-35 is a lovely lens. I'd love to have one for $900, much sexier than the 17-55. I concur with Ken.

Ken, I know the 16-35 is indeed a fine lens, but in objective terms I fail to see how it is "better at everything." My analysis goes something like this:

EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is better by these measures:

• significantly better f/2.8 performance
• image stabilization
• wider focal length range
• slightly better maximum sharpness at smaller apertures

16-35mm f/2.8 II is better by these measures:

• L build quality is as good as it gets
• sealed
• goes 1mm wider
• Can work on a FF body, too.

"Fast" is not an advantage since both are f/2.8. Does it _really_ focus faster, if that is what you mean?

"Pro" is a pretty meaningless concept without something more objective behind it.

"Not EFS" is an advantage if you intend to use it on a FF body, I suppose.

IS is certainly not wasted at 55mm on a crop sensor body, nor is it wasted on a cropped sensor 17-55mm zoom. Few would regard IS as a useless feature on, say, the 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens and in angle-of-view terms, the 17-55 is equivalent to putting a 27mm-88mm lens on a full frame body.

An executive summary might go something like this:

The EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens outperforms the 16-35mm f/2.8 L lens in optical terms at all apertures and focal lengths, adds image stabilization, and provides a slightly wider focal length range. On the other hand, the L lens is sealed and built somewhat more solidly, will work on both 1.6x cropped sensor and full frame Canon DSLRs, and has the Canon "L" designation and red ring.

I can understand why some people would prefer the 16-35 and I can understand equally well why the EFS 17-55 would attract certain photographers looking for the best lens for general use on a crop sensor body. The automatic "L bias" is not helpful and, I think, ignores that fact that an L lens is not always the best choice for the job in every case.

Take care,

Dan

I have the 16-35mm MII on a 30D and use as a moderately wide to normal lens. Excellent color, build and sharp. It's UWA design means corner softness especially at large aperture, but stopped down to 5.6-8, plenty sharp throughout. A major factor for my decision to purchase this over the 17-55mm is my intention to go FF a some point in the future...

Thanks, Even thought it was a great price I ended up passing simply because I have purchased a lot of good gear this year and I am going to start shooting more and lens researching less.

I have been following this conversation from the outside, since I shoot mostly full-frame cameras, although I just bought the XSi, which is very much like the XTi that I had this time last year.

I would offer one possible suggestion, for what it's worth: if someone is even considering the purchase of a camera with a full-frame sensor, then there is no contest. The 16-35 would indeed be the way to go. On the other hand, if one wanted to shoot really wide on a cropped sensor camera, then one would have to go to something like the 10-22, as someone said above.

I mention all of this because I personally would generally encourage persons to use lenses that could be used on cropped sensor as well as full-frame sensor camera, unless they know that they will stay with the cropped-snsor models, which well they might.

--Lannie

As someone who shoots both FF and crop frame,

I agree completely with both of G Dan Mitchell's posts and think they are worth reading at least twice.

P.S. Ken said, "Image Stabilization in a wide-angle lens is pretty much wasted."

I couldn't disagree more. I routinely face travel/night-photography situations in which I want to shoot in the 18-21mm range and I need to shoot at 1/4 or 1/6 of a second at f/2.8.

Be honest: If like the OP you were shooting a 1.6 crop camera, which wide-angle 2.8-zoom would you reach for in that situation, one with I.S. or one without?

> Be honest: If like the OP you were shooting a 1.6 crop camera, which wide-angle 2.8-zoom would you reach for in that situation, one with I.S. or one without?

I wouldn't be carrying both. Carrying two lenses that similar is a waste of bag-space.

As for the question, depends on the intended use:

For a standard zoom on a crop body, go with the 17-55.

For a good tripod-mounted landscape wideangle in that range, get the 16-35 or even better the 17-40. For real wide-angle get the 10-22.

Or be a man and get a bag of primes. :-)

the 16-35 is a FF lens, and is of only limited use on a crop body. The only pro is L-grade build quality, which isn't made in EF-S mount...

Tommy, correct me if wrong, but you already cover this focal range and out to 12mm. Have you shot enough to work out qheather you need another lens yet? :)

My current set up is 40D, 24-105 F4, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.4 and 100 2.8 macro. I do need to get a wider lens at some point and that is why I was considering the 16-35. I had a Tamron 11-18 that I sold. Not a bad lens at all but I want something that has a little more range on the wide end.

I try to avoid EF-S not just because of the full frame issue but because I feel its over priced mid grade build. I tested a 17-55 and while I love the performance I did not like how it felt compared to the L's. I would expect my next body to be full frame but probably not for a year or so.

Get the 16-35 or 17-40 if you have near term plans to go full frame, I shoot a 5D and 40D and would jump on it at that price, if I could test it. Did you ask why he is selling so cheap ?

Ross I never even bothered to go look at it. I know its a good deal. He claimed to have the box, paperwork etc. However I purchased 3 lenses over the past few months ( 2 L's ouch! ) and while I do need a wider lens I want to use what I have for a while. I usually never need to be wider then 24 even on a 40D so I can hold off.

I think I can count on one hand the number of shots I've missed, due to lack of I.S. on my wides with my EOS cameras during the past 18 years. I have a couple tripods (small/mini and normal). I carry a tripod when I KNOW I need stabilization. I can see how IS benefits at 30mm or longer and of course at 1/8 sec. hand held. But... I would much rather have the 16-35 for my uses than a similar EF-S with I.S.

G Dan's comments are excellent and well written; subjectively I doubt the EF-S 2.8 outperforms the 16-35 in that focal range at any aperture (sharpness/IQ).

Regarding the value of IS on wide angle lenses, I recently licensed the following photo (and several others) for use in a print journal.

The photograph was shot handheld on a full frame DSLR at 1/25 second at ISO 800 and 32mm. 32mm on full frame is equivalent to using a 20mm focal length on 1.6x crop. I had just finished a session of tripod-based landscape shooting on the summit of this dome, had packed up, and was heading down when the lone hiker crossed the ridgeline below me just as some lovely post-sunset light gently illuminated the landscape. Having no time to set up a tripod - hiker and light would have been gone by then - I dropped everything, pulled the camera with image-stabilized 24-105mm lens from the pack, made some quick seat-of-the-pants exposure calculations, and got of three quick frames before the scene was gone. I think this one turned out nicely.

Even as one who often shoots from a tripod - and almost always carries one - I have found the notion that IS has no value at shorter focal lengths to be a myth not born out in actual practice.

Dan

(Who uses neither of the lenses under discussion here.)

"For a good tripod-mounted landscape wideangle in that range, get the 16-35 or even better the 17-40."

Why? In objective terms, how do the 16-35 or 17-40 outperform the EFS 17-55 for landscape work with a cropped sensor body?

Dan

IS is a benefit at any focal length. Its just a bigger benefit on longer lenses.

I'm with Bob. Why buy a full-frame ultrawide, or a crop-sensor standard lens. Doesn't make sense.

Get Canon 10-22. Perfect companion to your 24-105. Yes it's an EF-S lens. Don't worry about it. 10 mm is fun, believe me.

If you want the UWA range on crop the EFS 10-22 is a good way to get there, for sure.

But I don't think the OP is interested in that option - he wrote: "Has anyone used the 16-35 mark 2? and how does it compare to the 17-55?"

What about 17-40 L ? I am very happy with mine.

"Everything? It's better at everything. Versatile. Fast. Sealed, pro, not EF-S. The OP didn't mention I.S. version of the EF-S lens. IS in a wide is pretty much wasted."

Versatile - What does that mean? Fast - Both f/2.8 Sealed - Irrelevant for a 40D which is not sealed Pro - Not sure what "Pro" means. I thought the final arbiter of quality of a lens was high IQ, and in this the 17-55 excels. Not EF-S - only relevant if Tommy wants to upgrade to full sensor and sell his 40D. IS wasted wide - maybe at 17 it's wasted, but certainly not at 55 in low light.

This is typical L-snobbery. I'll just go on using my 17-55 on my 40D content that the optics are really well matched to this camera. If I upgrade to full sensor, I'm sure the 16-35 L is a lovely lens.

I think its obvious both are excellent top quality lenses and you can make a case why one is better then the other. In my case I opted for neither for various reasons.

I appreciate everyones input.

A personal story: I started with a 1D and liked it a lot. I wanted to upgrade to 1D Mk III but the AF problems scared me. I thus bought the 40D. Then I traded two L lenses (17-40/4 and 24-105/4) for two EF-S ones (10-22/3.5-4.5 and 17-55/2.8 IS) and was absolutely mind boggled. They are extremely good lenses. In fact, I like them so much that I decided that when I buy a 1.3X/FF body in the future it will not replace the EF-S body but add to it.

Tommy, does it sound familiar? :-)

BTW, I agree that the 10-22 will be the best lens for you as far as focal lengths are concerned. 10-22 and 24-105 are a great setup together. Than again, if you want to replace the 24-105 than the 17-55 is the obvious route to go.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Yes Yakim, it does sound familiar :-] I did like the performance of the 17-55 but I decided to stick with the 24-105 for a few reasons. Build, longer range, Not EF-S ( my next body will be full frame ) The more I use my 24-105 the more I like it and I have a friend who is a pro teaching me ways to use it I never imagined. I know I loose a stop but the 24-105 is so versatile that its a lens I really like to own. I also have primes ( 28 1.8, 50 1.4 ) when I really need fast and they have the benefit of being small as well. Another reason not to get the new 16-35 since its a pretty big lens.

I do agree about getting an ultra wide to add right now but I may go for a Tamron, Sigma or Tokina simply because they are so much more affordable and this may be for the short term and honestly UW is something I would use rarely.

Even if I use the 40D 2 more years 24mm is plenty wide for me in most all cases and most often I am using the longer end.

Thanks Yakim

Two more years with the 40D? I'd buy the 10-22 in a heartbeat. After that you can simply sell it.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

I will probably upgrade before 2 years just making a point that 24 is wide enough for me most of the time. The Canon 10-22 is nice but there are lots of more affordable options that compare favorably to the Canon.

Here's another reason to think 10-22.

I'm a big fan of breaking up the focal lengths at 24 mm. I find that with my standard zoom (17-50/2.8) I keep having to switch lenses to ultrawide or telephoto. I'm juggling three lenses. The ultrawide stays put when I'm shooting landscape, but when I'm shooting people I keep having to switch lenses; 50 or 55 mm is right smack in the middle of my people-portraiture-candid-family gathering range. A 24-105 on APS-C solves this problem.

Now if Canon had a full-frame 35-160/4 IS to complement their 16-35 ultrawide, I might be swayed over to full-frame at some point, but for now I think I'll stick with APSC...

Ok I'm laying it on a bit thick there, trying to ruffle some feathers. YMMV of course, breaking it up at 24 mm suits my shooting style, maybe not yours.

ok maybe if you've got no need for 10 mm then a 16- or 17 mm zoom is the way to go. But 24 mm is not wide enough for most folks.

I'm a big fan of the 24-105 for a lot of purposes - particularly my uses on full frame - and I did use it on a crop body at one point. I think you could argue for either the 17-55 or the 10-22 as being great complements to the 24-105; it all comes down to the individual needs and preferences of the photographer.

I like having overlapping focal lengths in my lenses since this makes it considerably more likely that I'll already have the right lens on the camera and not have to change, and some of the features of the 17-55 nicely balance those of the 24-105 for those who share this point of view.

However, I've often thought that for some photographers (example, those trying to do landscape with minimal equipment) the combination of the 10-22 and the 24-105 would provide a lot of flexility for a two lens set, albeit at the (minor, for most) cost of a tiny gap between 22mm and 24mm and the no really large apertures. (A prime or two could resolve the latter nicely, and provide some other advantages.)

In either case, if you plan to move to FF in the not immediate future, you could probably sell either of these lenses and get back a decent part of your original investment.

Dan

When I discovered the possibilities of the wide angle I decided to have the world's widest possible set. It is full frame and 12 mm. Even the Peleng and the 15 mm are not wider (well, you can capture the feet of the photograph with the first one) but no comparison. If Canon would launch a wider gear no fish-eye, I would try to get one. I don’t know if it is technically possible. I see by the opinions that 10-22 is an excellent lens, but it is a 16 mm in FF. For architectural work I always use the Sigma 12-24 and not the 16-35.

When Hiking I love the combo of the 16-35 and the 85 1.8 lenses. Used with 40D and 10S bodies.

I couldn't get the house to be demolished with the 16-35. I am at the door of a shop.

Excellent picture, Ken Papai. I see that using the 16-35 vertically, the results are better. You don't get the low edges soft, as it happens in horozontal landcapes. I think that 16-35 has been designed to have the edges closer than the center. When they are not, the results are like this:

Left edge

Center

The last three pictures are made with 16-35

You can get better corner performance from either of the Canon FF UWAs (16-35 and 17-40) by stopping down. This is an especially good approach on FF. See an example here from the 17-40, and I'm sure the 16-35 would respond in a similar way.

Dan

(click for full size)

Canon XTI
Canon 16-35mm 2.8L II @ 35mm
Canon 580 EX II
1/15th sec. @ f 4.0
ISO 100

Nice cat, Christina. But the picture is at 35mm and at short distance. Concerning your excellent photo, Dan, it confirms what I always have said. If I have to stop down, I should have bought the 17-40. 1 mm less at the wide end but 5 mm more at the opposite, and less cost. I bought the 16-35 for rapid shots at events with many people, as for that the Sigma 12-24 is useless. But the 16-35 yields bad pictures at low light with the edges very soft (at 16mm) or with flash(part overexposed and part underexposed). I use the 24-105 instead with good results.

Canon J11x4.5BIRSD WA Lens says “touted as the widest lens in the world” ….” An 88.7 degree angle of view in 4:3 mode and a 93.7 degree view in 16:9 make it easy to get the coverage you need” But 12 mm in full frame is FOV (vertical) (degrees): 112.6 FOV (vertical) (degrees): 90 FOV (diagonal) (degrees): 122

Sorry, FOV (horizontal degrees): 112.6

Antonio, whats the cost of this lens?

Bob, If you mean the Canon J11x4.5B Wide Angle Lens, it costs 9,238.80 euros (14,375.39 USD) but it can be rented:

(link)

Anyway, what I try to say is that they announce it as the widest in the world (possibily for video, I don't know about this). But the widest set for photos is 12-24 Sigma with Full frame

I thinks eeets eeenteresting that the general consensus is to BUY EQUIPMENT NOW despite prospective price drops as we cant take pictures with cameras we havent bought. However, when purchasing lenses, a lot of our brethren are buying lenses optimized for the FF in their future. Ironic.

On a crop sensor camera, the 17-55 is equivalent to a wide to short tele zoom. The 16-35 L is only a wide to normal zoom. I'd go with what is needed by the user. The former making more sense to me unless I was buying for the FF in my future :)

> Why? In objective terms, how do the 16-35 or 17-40 outperform the EFS 17-55 for landscape work with a cropped sensor body?

Because the 17-40 is half the price of either the 16-35 or th 17-55, and at least equally sharp at smaller apertures.

@Antonio Flores: Are those taken with the 16-35 or the 16-35 mkII?

I've seen a lot of tests that show that the mkI was notably fuzier at the edges than the mkII is.

To the OP: Personally, for that focal length on a crop body, not counting future upgrades to FF or anything, I'd take the 17-55. It offers IS, and much better reach on the long side. The 16-35II is nice, but it's intended as a FF lens. It'll be overly heavy for the small reach it offers, and as your body isn't weather sealed, having a sealed lens is only of moderate use.

B.J. Scharp, the roof and the crops of the roof are made with 16-35 II and 5D. I saw the problem when I bought it a few weeks ago. You can see the thread:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00PRaZ

The 12mm is FF and Sigma 12-24 at 12 (using it Manual Focus).

I can get good pictures with the 16-35, but it is not the wonder everybody says.

I thought the Sigma was a lemon but I learnt to use it and now it is my favorite for archictectural photos

If I had not bought the 16-35 I would go for the Nikkkor 14-24 and the adaptor. But the Sigma is wider and I don't need the Nikkor. I am happy having the widest set in the world. (12 mm+FF).

Sorrry, my lens is the 16-35 MK II

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L 2 EF (USM) LENS - CA163528L2EF 1 $1450,00 $1450,00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub Total $1450,00 Shipping $51,25 Sales Tax $0,00 Total $1501,25 THis is the invoice of BH. I suppose it is the MK II

G Dan, You've certainly collected a fantastic library of photos. Very nice work on your website.

Aside from that, on a 40D? You said in a previous post you own the 5D...

Either way, if you don't need 2.8, the 17-40L is a fantastic lens. Since I do a lot of off-camera lit pictures, I find the 17-40 to be ideal in most circumstances, very seldom do I wish I had 2.8.

the 17-55 is a EF-S lens. If you own the 5D, it won't work. In the long run, i personally think you're better off with the 16-35 anyways if you have the cash.

@Antonio, if that is the mkII I'm glad I bought the 17-40. I don't know if it's better, but it's certainly not worse, and half the price.

Like David, most pictures I take with it are tripod-mounted landscapes where the 1-stop difference doesn't matter one bit (not to mention I'm not even using F4, let alone F2.8, more like F8). This is on an EOS 30, so the 17-55 wouldn't have been an option.

B.J. Scharp, I think you are right. I bought the 16-35 II to use it indoors with flash (in events, cocktail parties, dinners, etc.). Lots of pictures and very quickly but I am afraid I have to learn how to do it. It is not just point and shoot. For lanscapes 17-40 is an excellent option.

I definetely plan on upgrading my 30d to a Full Frame camera as soon as the 5d upgrade comes out. I already have the money sitting in a bank account waithing for the day it releases. As such, I have upgraded my collection of lenses to either L-series zooms or primes, I even have a couple L-series primes. I will NEVER purchase another EF-S lens as I stilll shoot and love my Canon Elan 7NE. I can see more of a difference in the lens quality when I shoot film than when I shoot digital. So I expect to see that same difference when I finally get a FF camera.

16-35 2.8 all the way.