16-35mm L lens

rogerwilco357

Active member
anyone try this lens out if so let me know how it worked out for you. I don't have any lenses for wide shots my lens are as follow 24-105L,85mm f1.2L,70-200 f2.8 IS ..I have nothing in below the 24mm and this one seems to cover alot of bases. also would you think the 85mm is covered by the 24-105 or the 70-200mm? maybe selling it and replacing it with the 16-35mm I only use the 85 for portraits and it does a nice job so I am scratching my head here I know the 70-200 has it covered but at what cost the distance would be compromised for in house shots would need more room ..anyway thanks for any input.
Roger
 
I have never used it, but I have read it is a good solid lens. Pretty heavy though. Do you need the zoom? I have a 15mm Sigma that I have been really happy with. About 1/3 the cost of the 16-35.

Pre-show2.jpg
 
Yeah like the zoom not ready for primes just picked up the canon 85Lmmf1.2II and it rocks but still getting used to it being a prime and that bokeh . Thanks anyway post more pics that is a nice one u posted .
 
I have the 16-35mm lens and it is a cracker, but I don't bet much chance to use it. The 17-40mm is also great and a lot cheaper.

I would love the 85mm 1.2II, it's next on my list. I wouldn't sell it to get a wide angle zoom. And that bokeh, it's to die for!


Daragh
 
If I remember correctly, the 17-40 was considerably lower image quality if used wide open. I think there was a comparison on Luminous Landscape. if you're gonna do it, do it right :).
 
What body are you using? I ended up selling the 17-40mm for the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8. A neat little lens that was about 1/3rd of the price. Did I mention FF compatible? ;-)
 
right now I use the 5dmkII with the 70-200L f/2.8 IS and the 24-105L and the 85 1.2 L for portraits nice bokeh but need a lens for the wide shots it is the last lens on my list for the year.
 
that shot above was 15mm Sigma on a FF body. Reasonable price, F2.8 and fairly light. Know you said you wanted a zoom though.
 
Back
Top