PDA

View Full Version : Is it worth to buy a canon 16-35/2.8 for video?



Eljoninjo
05-02-2011, 04:32 AM
Hi Im thinking on getting on the hdslr train while wating for something better to come out. Just want to have another option to my hvx200 and I find the 7d to be interesting. I wonder if I waste money if I buy a canon 16-35/2.8L or a 17-55/2.8 EF-S since I mainly want to use it for video. I mean the video is heavely compressed with h264. If I want the option to use the lens with the "coming" 5d replacement, do I need to get a L lens?

Jordan_S
05-02-2011, 05:01 AM
If you don"t need a fast lens, use the kit lens for video. That being said, the 7d happens to be an incredible stills camera.; you may find yourself taking more photos than you anticipated.

Eljoninjo
05-02-2011, 05:38 AM
I definitely need a fast lens with a constant aperture. So the kit lens is not interesting. I think you have right that I might take a hole lot more pictures then I planned. You cant use the 17-55/2.8 on a fullframe without vin-jetting right?

Jordan_S
05-02-2011, 05:53 AM
That's correct.

I will say this, though: the more I learn about lenses, the more I think renting possible purchases is a solid idea. Use in the store ain't enough. Renting gives you the freedom to do and go as you please and to really ascertain an individual lens's qualities.

That being said, you really can't go wrong with the 16-35. I decided on the 17-40 and found one used for $1000 less than a new 16-35. You have to decide if f/2.8 is worth it. Or if two or three faster primes will give you what you need.

deltoidjohn
05-02-2011, 04:02 PM
Why not get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8? It's an excellent lens and a favorite particularly for video use, but much cheaper than the Canon 16-35 or 17-55. Of course you can't use it with the with the 5DmkII or other future full-frame cameras but it's so cheap that you may as well buy it now and upgrade to a full-frame lens later. Also the 16-35 would be considered a 'special purpose' super-wide zoom lens on the 5dmkII. To get a standard lens (ie the full frame equivelant of a 17-50mm) you would probably be better off with the 24-70 f/2.8.

Keep in mind that lenses hold their value much better than camera bodies do. If you look after them, some lenses will sell for not much less than you bought them for - in some cases you might even make a profit. One example is the Tokina 11-16 - it's so popular that it is usually out of stock, and as a result second hand versions can occasionally sell for more than the MSRP. I would not worry too much about buying only lenses that will futureproof you. Particularly when you consider that lenses designed for APS-C are generally much cheaper and have more 3rd party alternatives, it makes sense to just buy what you need now and sell/upgrade later on.

If you do decide to only get full-frame compatible lenses, you'll want to look for EF lenses, not EF-S. All L-series lenses are EF lenses and will work on either a full-frame or APS-C sensor.

nantnee
05-02-2011, 04:52 PM
If you're interested in the 16-35mm, im debating selling mine if you want to talk. PM if interested.

ROCKMORE
05-13-2011, 12:05 AM
Why not get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8? It's an excellent lens and a favorite particularly for video use, but much cheaper than the Canon 16-35 or 17-55.

The 16-35mm 2.8 is a great lens, but the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is also quite good for maybe $1000 less. This will leave money for a second lens while you decide what you need in the long run.

draven4
07-15-2011, 12:51 AM
16-35mm 2.8 blows the others out of the water. Stay away from kit lenses. Save up buy good glass.

As for you question it's kind of more of a focal length issue. I'd say for starters a great piece of glass with a great focal range is the one you mentioned
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS
It's L-glass in a consumer body with IS. I've owned it and it gave greater results then a kit lens or even the Tamron mentioned.

J Davis
07-15-2011, 12:54 AM
If you're on a 5D then the 16-35 would cover you without vignetting but if you're on the 7d, 60d, t2i or t3i then roll with the 17-55

draven4
07-15-2011, 12:54 AM
Don't listen to those arguments about not needing great lenses because of video not being that sharp. It is noticeably better and the way better lenses render light and color is another good thing about investing in good glass.

While not hugely different sometimes the little differences still... make a difference.

ROCKMORE
07-16-2011, 05:07 PM
Don't listen to those arguments about not needing great lenses because of video not being that sharp. It is noticeably better and the way better lenses render light and color is another good thing about investing in good glass.


That's right

deltoidjohn
07-16-2011, 06:38 PM
Don't listen to those arguments about not needing great lenses because of video not being that sharp. It is noticeably better and the way better lenses render light and color is another good thing about investing in good glass.

While not hugely different sometimes the little differences still... make a difference.

I agree, but keep in mind there is good glass apart from from Canon L-series, and at much cheaper prices. Some lenses are optically amazing (almost on par with Canon L-series glass) but might have lesser build quality or older AF systems, or they might simply be cheaper because they come from a 3rd party manufaturer. Just because a lens such as the Tamron 17-50 is cheap doesn't mean it is not outstanding quality.

ROCKMORE
07-17-2011, 01:49 PM
Just because a lens such as the Tamron 17-50 is cheap doesn't mean it is not outstanding quality.

Great Lens, Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non VC

HansSteinert
07-17-2011, 02:31 PM
IMO, no. The 16-35mm is overpriced for what you get. the 17-40mm f4 is a better deal.

If you have a cropped camera, get neither. Snag a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and then a Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

zeke
08-19-2011, 08:06 AM
IMO, no. The 16-35mm is overpriced for what you get. the 17-40mm f4 is a better deal.

If you have a cropped camera, get neither. Snag a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and then a Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
+1

deltoidjohn
08-22-2011, 04:55 AM
IMO, no. The 16-35mm is overpriced for what you get. the 17-40mm f4 is a better deal.

If you have a cropped camera, get neither. Snag a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and then a Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

Good call. Two lenses that deliver more than you deserve for their price!

I would not get the 16-35 f/2.8 because it is not designed as a general purpose lens for APS-C. It is designed as a Super-wide zoom lens for full-frame cameras. It is a special purpose lens, and this means it attracts a premium. Get an appropriately matched standard zoom lens for APS-C and you'll be better off, with more range and no unnecesary weight, size and expense. You can always sell it when you upgrade to full-frame.

maarek
08-31-2011, 05:04 AM
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is great...except for the awful, awful manual focus ring. It's just impossible.

bronxjragon
09-14-2011, 01:06 PM
Great Lens, Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non VC

Surely you must be using some kind of polarizer as well?

henryqiu
09-14-2011, 01:52 PM
Hi Im thinking on getting on the hdslr train while wating for something better to come out. Just want to have another option to my hvx200 and I find the 7d to be interesting. I wonder if I waste money if I buy a canon 16-35/2.8L or a 17-55/2.8 EF-S since I mainly want to use it for video. I mean the video is heavely compressed with h264. If I want the option to use the lens with the "coming" 5d replacement, do I need to get a L lens?

If you want to use it on a FF camera in the near future, 16-35mm is a best investment for still photography, but only a good investment for video. For video, your best options are EF 24mm/1.4 and Zeiss 35/f1.4, as the f/1.4 far outweighs the zoom flexibility. Get both and all three if you shoot both still and video.

If you want to keep a 7D with you for at least a few years, any IS zoom lens with constant aperture is a best investment. For shooting video with 7D, 17-55/f2.8 IS is definitely much better than 16-35/2.8 - beyond any questions. Period. Alternatively, Tokina 11-16 + 24/1.4 or Zeiss 35/1.4 are also best options too. But for still photography, 17-55/f2.8 vs 16-35mm/f2.8 is really a toss up - you have to make up your mind by yourself. If low price or IS matters more, get 17-55. If you want to use it as a walk around lens, 17-55 is much better than 16-35. If build quality matters more than everything else, get 16-35, as it'll serve you well in all kinds of harsh environments and survive possible field abuse much better.

In terms of image quality, consider them as equals - the differences are just smoke, more subjective than something that really matters.

Keep this mind though: accessories such as filters, as well as repair services, are (much) more expensive for 16-35 than for 17-55, too. Not just their retail prices.