@vandal145 You are right on target with what I use. I sometimes forget that I have the 16 to 35. The 24 to 70 is all important. I would not replace it for any lens out there. I do like the 16 to 35 but the 24 to 70 has more applications. If you get the lens as an addition , okay. But think long and hard before "replacing" it. Good luck to you.I hope you have a very profitable year.
@BorislavX That depends on how deep your pockets are. If you have the money to burn yes. There are photographs in museums and art galleries that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. In some cases they are so old that their creators are dead. Most were taken with cameras and lenses that were a joke compared to the optics of the lens you posses. So why are your photos not being sold alongside them? They educated themselves on photography not buying version II. Learn Photography.
@ralph7883 The tripod is a Manfrotto 3221 with a 3265 joystick (head). Also on it is a CUSTUM BRACKET which allows me to swivel the camera from vertical to horizontal.
@airatak No, I am happy with the one I have and know that I will see no difference when it comes to image quality. I only review equipment that I own. If you do not have a 16 to 35 L I highly recommend it. It is a Flourite lens Which means some of the elements are crystal not glass. Crystal transmits light more efficiently than glass that's why the L lenses usually have larger f/stops. If you can get a deal on the this lens because the new one lowered the price forget Mark 2 and 3 and 4.
Did my research on this lens and Got mine on the way. I'm more into the video side of the camera but I was sold wen I seen what kinda quality this bad boy can produce. rented this lens for a day and I was really in shock! Had to get one fast! The colors or so rich and the picture/video is really sharp! WTF is up with all these trolls about this lens! It's simple just rent b4 u buy and you will see the ozomeness of the beast!
I want to see more reviews like this! I never know what equipment to spend my money on, and it makes me nervous to throw so much money when I feel like I never really get a lot of information about it. You know what you're talking about though, can you make more?
debating on whether or not to get this lens, or the new Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 (for full-frame sensors). The Tokina is half the price, but can't take filters.
@skyf4ll I do have a monopod but not the 10-22. My assistant uses the monopod to hold the flash off camera. I only review lenses or cameras that I own. I have 2 Canon 15mm lenses, Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 70-200 f/4L. I also love my Manfrotto tripods. I use the Canon 5D MKII. The next review will be on the 70-200.
I actually have this lens and thinking about selling it. The 2.8 is not fast enough in low light and Dose not make the background creamy and nice at wide open it's soft and with my 5D mark 2 at the 35mm it's also not so sharp. I am looking it to buying the 35mm F1.4L USM. I think it's an awesome lense and will be heck of alot faster and sharper at 35. Also have the 15 fish eye so that should s
Hi what about the corners? probably thay are soft from this lens .Like i said before i have 17-55 which is sharp even in corners but im considering to get 16-35 mk 2 in the future
@michonn2 If you like the lens you have why bother to get another similar lens? To Quote a famous photographer, "I have never seen a bad lens but I have seen bad photography." Yes the corners are sharp. If I had your lens I would be just as content. Go ahead and purchase the 16-35 MKII but what happens in 2 years when they come out with the 16-35 MKIII? Here is my advice. Go to Amazon.com and in their search type "Manny Pontoriero" purchase my instructional DVDs. Learn photography and have fun.
Hi just i want to say that u r wrong my friend becouse 17-55 is better and sharper just 16-35 has better bild quality , i know that becouse i had this lens for a weekend and compered to my 17-55 wich i own for about one year
@michonn2 I will have to take your word on this one as I do not have the 17-55. It sounds like you are very happy with it. I can tell you that I have 30x40 prints taken with the 16-35 lens in my studio and they are sharp.
@michonn2 actually the 17-55 does not have better build quality as it is non-L, in fact ive compared it to several other lenses myself, but u may be right about the image quality that thing uses L-par optics :)
Many underwater photographers love this lens because of its characteristics. It allows both close up and wide shots without having to change lenses while underwater. It has a great depth of field making it a bit easier to focus underwater for various conditions.
@arnoldgd84 There is a noticeable difference however it is not life threatening. In other words you will still get amazing photos with this lens. It is a Flourite lens which means it is the sharpest and yields excellent color. It is rugged and tough on wear. It's great on landscape or scenic photos as well as group photos in small areas. This lens will last longer than your camera. Thanks for the question
@getthepicturetv1 thank you for the reply. Im just concerned because I already have a 50mm 1.8 which is great and im not sure if its gonna make a difference on how wide the photo will look. The 50mm is not so great with group photos or parties. I just want an everyday lens so I dont have to switch all the time. I was also looking at the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, which i know would make a lot of difference. Just curious which would be better for all everyday lens if you are familiar with the Tokina.
@arnoldgd84 An 11-16 is a super wide lens. I am not familiar with this lens but just the numbers alone tell me it must have linear distortion. It is an exotic lens. Exotic lenses are great but have specific and limited use. You'll do better with the 16-35mm 2.8L
@BlueShirt7 Hi! not sure of the question. On all my camera lenses there is a UV filter for protecting the front element from bumps and scratches. As for eliminating UV rays and getting a clearer image I don't see any difference with or without. If you are asking whether the video camera that is filming me has a UV filter, I believe not..
Just got the 70-200 2.8 IS II anyway I was really having a hard time choosing between this and the 17-40 I use a 1D Mark 3 so I would Love the extra MM but I'm not sure I need the extra weight
@abokwu I make it a point not to purchase any lens that more than triples its focal length. As a rule the more you stretch the optics the more you get chromatic aberration. Not having this lens I can't be sure. But those are the laws of optics. Check with Popular Photography magazine. They do very detailed tests.
@abokwu you need both! i have the 17-40 and the 24-105 its a great combination and the 24-105 has IS and its great specially for movie mode. so get the 16-35 or 17-40 + 24-105 and you'll be good. just add a 70-200 later for a complete kit ;)
@abokwu Depends on what your set up is right now. I have had lots of luck with the 24-105 L lens. It has a huge range and is fantastic in most situations. However, in some close situation shooting inside it was extremely hard to get good pictures. It depends on what you plan to shoot more. In a perfect world I would have both, which is why I'm saving up for the 16-35mm :)
@arkistahin07 Sorry for not responding sooner, I missed this. I use the Manfrotto 3221 with a 3265 grip. This is an aluminum tripod which I have had for over 12 years. In the last 6 months I have done a lot of photos on the beach and have gotten sand in it. It no longer works well. I am now considering a carbon tripod like the 190cx or 055c.
That depends on how low of a shutter speed you use and how well you have trained yourself to hold the camera steady. Image stabilization is great but it has not been around very long (maybe 10 years). For the past 100 years photograpgers have created amazing photos without it. Great question!
Thanks for the comment. We will be posting new ones in a few weeks and they'll be more detailed and more photo examples. Meantime check out our website for free photo tips. You'll like it even more.
As the photographer you can use any lens you wish to take a portrait. However, the best portrait lens is anywhere from 85mm to 105mm. The 105mm being the best portrait lens. If you have a zoom from 70 to 200mm set it at 105. The reason for this is how the 105 "sees the three planes of focus. The fore ground, middle ground and background. It does not compress them too much like the 200 and it does not separate them too much like the 16 to 35mm. The 105 does not compress or exagerate the face.
GOOD NEAT COMPACT REVIEW. I HAVE THE 70-200 L, THE 24-70 L. JUST NEED THIS TO COMPLETE MY KIT.
TreijaMusic 1 month ago
Thanks for the prompt reply
vandal145 1 month ago
For weddings I normally use a 24-70L and a 70-200 2.8L IS. Would the cost of purchasing the 16-35L to replace the 24-70L be justified?
Thanks
vandal145 1 month ago
@vandal145 You are right on target with what I use. I sometimes forget that I have the 16 to 35. The 24 to 70 is all important. I would not replace it for any lens out there. I do like the 16 to 35 but the 24 to 70 has more applications. If you get the lens as an addition , okay. But think long and hard before "replacing" it. Good luck to you.I hope you have a very profitable year.
getthepicturetv 1 month ago
Would you say it is worth $400 - $600 to go up from version I to version II of this lens?
BorislavX 2 months ago
@BorislavX That depends on how deep your pockets are. If you have the money to burn yes. There are photographs in museums and art galleries that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. In some cases they are so old that their creators are dead. Most were taken with cameras and lenses that were a joke compared to the optics of the lens you posses. So why are your photos not being sold alongside them? They educated themselves on photography not buying version II. Learn Photography.
getthepicturetv 2 months ago in playlist More videos from getthepicturetv
What brand tripod is that?
ralph7883 2 months ago
@ralph7883 The tripod is a Manfrotto 3221 with a 3265 joystick (head). Also on it is a CUSTUM BRACKET which allows me to swivel the camera from vertical to horizontal.
getthepicturetv 2 months ago
"at parties...and for landscapes" lol
SamjTeleVision 4 months ago
i've used both the mk1 and mk2 version of the 16-35...... and if i owned a mk1 now, i'd probably just throw it in the bin..... its soooooooo bad
mk2 is great though
aaronc608 10 months ago
have you tried out the mark II version of this lens and if so how does it compare?
airatak 1 year ago
@airatak No, I am happy with the one I have and know that I will see no difference when it comes to image quality. I only review equipment that I own. If you do not have a 16 to 35 L I highly recommend it. It is a Flourite lens Which means some of the elements are crystal not glass. Crystal transmits light more efficiently than glass that's why the L lenses usually have larger f/stops. If you can get a deal on the this lens because the new one lowered the price forget Mark 2 and 3 and 4.
getthepicturetv 1 year ago
@getthepicturetv well on a full framer the vII will have less fringing on the sides...
BorislavX 2 months ago
Did my research on this lens and Got mine on the way. I'm more into the video side of the camera but I was sold wen I seen what kinda quality this bad boy can produce. rented this lens for a day and I was really in shock! Had to get one fast! The colors or so rich and the picture/video is really sharp! WTF is up with all these trolls about this lens! It's simple just rent b4 u buy and you will see the ozomeness of the beast!
tongannewsnetwork 1 year ago
I want to see more reviews like this! I never know what equipment to spend my money on, and it makes me nervous to throw so much money when I feel like I never really get a lot of information about it. You know what you're talking about though, can you make more?
Domen8R 1 year ago
debating on whether or not to get this lens, or the new Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 (for full-frame sensors). The Tokina is half the price, but can't take filters.
ragnarocking 1 year ago
r u using monopod? what brand is it? have u compared 10-22 with this ?
skyf4ll 1 year ago
@skyf4ll I do have a monopod but not the 10-22. My assistant uses the monopod to hold the flash off camera. I only review lenses or cameras that I own. I have 2 Canon 15mm lenses, Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 70-200 f/4L. I also love my Manfrotto tripods. I use the Canon 5D MKII. The next review will be on the 70-200.
getthepicturetv1 1 year ago
I actually have this lens and thinking about selling it. The 2.8 is not fast enough in low light and Dose not make the background creamy and nice at wide open it's soft and with my 5D mark 2 at the 35mm it's also not so sharp. I am looking it to buying the 35mm F1.4L USM. I think it's an awesome lense and will be heck of alot faster and sharper at 35. Also have the 15 fish eye so that should s
Do for super wide angle
nima0071 1 year ago
Ugggg, I have the 24-70 (currently in great need of servicing) and a 70-200 non-IS
It's either I get this or another camera body. I only have a 2 year old 40D in my arsenal :(
RyanTheTuber 1 year ago
Hi what about the corners? probably thay are soft from this lens .Like i said before i have 17-55 which is sharp even in corners but im considering to get 16-35 mk 2 in the future
michonn2 1 year ago
@michonn2 If you like the lens you have why bother to get another similar lens? To Quote a famous photographer, "I have never seen a bad lens but I have seen bad photography." Yes the corners are sharp. If I had your lens I would be just as content. Go ahead and purchase the 16-35 MKII but what happens in 2 years when they come out with the 16-35 MKIII? Here is my advice. Go to Amazon.com and in their search type "Manny Pontoriero" purchase my instructional DVDs. Learn photography and have fun.
getthepicturetv1 1 year ago
Hi just i want to say that u r wrong my friend becouse 17-55 is better and sharper just 16-35 has better bild quality , i know that becouse i had this lens for a weekend and compered to my 17-55 wich i own for about one year
michonn2 1 year ago
@michonn2 I will have to take your word on this one as I do not have the 17-55. It sounds like you are very happy with it. I can tell you that I have 30x40 prints taken with the 16-35 lens in my studio and they are sharp.
getthepicturetv 1 year ago
@michonn2
well the 16-35 i really a UWA for FF camera..
teksTomme 1 year ago
@michonn2 actually the 17-55 does not have better build quality as it is non-L, in fact ive compared it to several other lenses myself, but u may be right about the image quality that thing uses L-par optics :)
photocide1 8 months ago
Many underwater photographers love this lens because of its characteristics. It allows both close up and wide shots without having to change lenses while underwater. It has a great depth of field making it a bit easier to focus underwater for various conditions.
The Meltdownman
meltdownman1 1 year ago
i have a crop frame cam t1i, this there a huge difference when it comes to how wide the photo will look?
arnoldgd84 1 year ago
@arnoldgd84 There is a noticeable difference however it is not life threatening. In other words you will still get amazing photos with this lens. It is a Flourite lens which means it is the sharpest and yields excellent color. It is rugged and tough on wear. It's great on landscape or scenic photos as well as group photos in small areas. This lens will last longer than your camera. Thanks for the question
getthepicturetv1 1 year ago
@getthepicturetv1 thank you for the reply. Im just concerned because I already have a 50mm 1.8 which is great and im not sure if its gonna make a difference on how wide the photo will look. The 50mm is not so great with group photos or parties. I just want an everyday lens so I dont have to switch all the time. I was also looking at the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, which i know would make a lot of difference. Just curious which would be better for all everyday lens if you are familiar with the Tokina.
arnoldgd84 1 year ago
@arnoldgd84 An 11-16 is a super wide lens. I am not familiar with this lens but just the numbers alone tell me it must have linear distortion. It is an exotic lens. Exotic lenses are great but have specific and limited use. You'll do better with the 16-35mm 2.8L
getthepicturetv1 1 year ago
do you use a UV filter in the vid? :)
BlueShirt7 1 year ago
@BlueShirt7 Hi! not sure of the question. On all my camera lenses there is a UV filter for protecting the front element from bumps and scratches. As for eliminating UV rays and getting a clearer image I don't see any difference with or without. If you are asking whether the video camera that is filming me has a UV filter, I believe not..
getthepicturetv1 1 year ago
Just got the 70-200 2.8 IS II anyway I was really having a hard time choosing between this and the 17-40 I use a 1D Mark 3 so I would Love the extra MM but I'm not sure I need the extra weight
FuryPhotos 1 year ago
compare it to the 24-105 L somebody...i am debating whether or not to get this lens...challa
abokwu 1 year ago
@abokwu I make it a point not to purchase any lens that more than triples its focal length. As a rule the more you stretch the optics the more you get chromatic aberration. Not having this lens I can't be sure. But those are the laws of optics. Check with Popular Photography magazine. They do very detailed tests.
getthepicturetv 1 year ago
@getthepicturetv so...the 70-200 which is slightly less than triple in range is a good choice? thanks for your response.
abokwu 1 year ago
@abokwu Yes, I have the 70 to 200 f/4 L. I love it and recommend it. At $600 it is a great value.
getthepicturetv1 1 year ago
@getthepicturetv thanks for this helpful tip!
bootfruity 1 year ago
@getthepicturetv thanks for this helpful tip! about the triple focul length
bootfruity 1 year ago
@abokwu you need both! i have the 17-40 and the 24-105 its a great combination and the 24-105 has IS and its great specially for movie mode. so get the 16-35 or 17-40 + 24-105 and you'll be good. just add a 70-200 later for a complete kit ;)
WESTWOODBEATS 1 year ago
@abokwu Depends on what your set up is right now. I have had lots of luck with the 24-105 L lens. It has a huge range and is fantastic in most situations. However, in some close situation shooting inside it was extremely hard to get good pictures. It depends on what you plan to shoot more. In a perfect world I would have both, which is why I'm saving up for the 16-35mm :)
AndrewBetsch 11 months ago
Great review!
missflyfishn 1 year ago
It is the 3221 tripod with the joystick head. Another good tripod is the 190XPROB with the 322RC2 Ball head.
getthepicturetv 1 year ago
what tripod do u use?
arkistahin07 1 year ago
@arkistahin07 Sorry for not responding sooner, I missed this. I use the Manfrotto 3221 with a 3265 grip. This is an aluminum tripod which I have had for over 12 years. In the last 6 months I have done a lot of photos on the beach and have gotten sand in it. It no longer works well. I am now considering a carbon tripod like the 190cx or 055c.
getthepicturetv1 1 year ago
without ImageStabilizer are alot of shots little blurry (if tripod isn't used)? thank you
Tom44400 1 year ago
@Tom44400
That depends on how low of a shutter speed you use and how well you have trained yourself to hold the camera steady. Image stabilization is great but it has not been around very long (maybe 10 years). For the past 100 years photograpgers have created amazing photos without it. Great question!
getthepicturetv 1 year ago
35mm or 16-35 mm on 7d?
Gracias
Sspeedyme 2 years ago
What Canon body did you shoot these examples with?
camp5oh 2 years ago
5D Mark 2
getthepicturetv 2 years ago
i love your reviews :-)
Meiereika 2 years ago 2
Hi Meiereika,
Thanks for the comment. We will be posting new ones in a few weeks and they'll be more detailed and more photo examples. Meantime check out our website for free photo tips. You'll like it even more.
getthepicturetv 2 years ago
Is it good for the prortrait ?
ClassicoVa 2 years ago
As the photographer you can use any lens you wish to take a portrait. However, the best portrait lens is anywhere from 85mm to 105mm. The 105mm being the best portrait lens. If you have a zoom from 70 to 200mm set it at 105. The reason for this is how the 105 "sees the three planes of focus. The fore ground, middle ground and background. It does not compress them too much like the 200 and it does not separate them too much like the 16 to 35mm. The 105 does not compress or exagerate the face.
getthepicturetv 2 years ago
I LOVE THIS LENS
I have this, too
MrArabStyle 2 years ago 2
it's a Magnificent Lens
hobateetomambo 2 years ago 2