I am looking at the EF 16-35 mm f2.8 L II USM as a wide angle for my 5D. I am interested in hearing from others who have the lens and their experience with it, regardless of the camera. I would also like to know if there are some Sigma or Tamron lenses that I should consider and do they make an equivalent of the Canon L lenses? Any insight that anyone can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. :thumbsup:

Cheers,

WesternGuy

no 3rd party lenses really are an equivalent of L lenses, they're in a class of their own. The construction, USM, and overall excellent performance can't really be matched by sigma or tamron. L is certainly luxury, and not many lenses come close to an L lens. Can't tell you much about that lens though. have you check out the 17-40? yeah it's an f/4 but its pretty incredible from what I hear. and since you have a FF camera you're getting the true 17mm.

Brent thanks for the insight on the L lenses. I have not checked out the 17- 40, but I will have a look. I see a lot of references to it in this forum and others as well, and everything I read says that everyone who has one is quite satisfied with it.

Cheers,

WesternGuy.

I would rent and try before you buy. Lensprotogo.com has them on a weekly rental basis with free shipping in both directions.

I see a lot more WA distortion, almost a fisheye effect with the 16mm setting. More obvious than what I saw with the 14mm prime. You need to be very careful to avoid unwanted distortion with this lens with subject positioning in the center of the frame.

Bruce

Until very recently I used a 17-40mm f/4 L on the 5D. It's a great lens with excellent contrast and sharpness. It really is one of Canon's gems. Great for landscape work and environmental/street stuff. It's not worth spending the extra on a 16-35mm of any description unless you're working professionaly in which case you may want the 16-35mm f/2.8 MK1 or MK2.

I swapped to the 16-35mm f/2.8 MKII on the 5D as I wanted the extra stop available for flash/lowlight work though I also use it for arcitecture, the odd wedding and street photography. It has slightly better contrast and sharpness. It has a great colour and very good distortion ocntrol (notably better than the 17-40). I'm not sure it's worth the extra premium but there is no doubt it is slightly better than the 17-40mm. That said unless you need the f/2.8 then the 17-40mm is more than capable of getting the results.
Hope thats of use?
D