Selene03

It might depend on the camera's ISO abilities, but in general, the 16-35 F4 is a much sharper all around lens. The 2.8 is good in the center. I have found the 16-35 F4 to be ions better than the 17-40. I think maybe I read that can was coming out with a newer version of the 16-35 F 2.8 which might make the choice much more difficult, but if you want a lens now it is hard to beat the 16-35 f4.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Personally I wouldn't buy either of the 16-35s for use on an APS-C camera.

For wide angle work, I got the EF-S 10-22mm USM instead ($468 refurbished). The new EF-S 10-18mm IS STM seems a real bargain at under $300 brand new ($216 refurb'd), even if a little plasticky.

If the 16-35mm focal lengths are what appeal to you, as sort of a mid-range "walk around" zoom, a better choice for use on your current camera 80D or any other APS-C crop Canon camera would be the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM. It's very sharp and capable, offers an f2.8 aperture.... and has Image Stabilization and USM focus drive. $634 refurbished.

If the f2.8 aperture of the 17-55mm weren't critical, the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM would be my second choice for a "walk-around" zoom. It's got top image quality and overall performance... is wider than most lenses of this type, so might not need a wider lens with it. It's a little more compact than the 17-55mm, but is an f3.5-5.6 lens.... refurbished it costs $580.

If video were my thing (it's not), I'd take a serious look at the new EF-S 18-135mm IS USM. It's the first USM lens optimized for video, plus there's a matched motorized zoom module available for it. In general, STM lenses are better choice for videography, smoother and quieter than most USM.... However, USM is at least 2X as fast, so is better for sports/action photography. This lenses might be the best of both worlds.... for someone who wants to be able to do both.

Spending a lot extra for full-frame capable lenses, then only using them on APS-C crop sensor cameras is largely a waste of money and often won't get you any better image quality. (Compare any of the above to $790 for the 16-35/4 refurb'd, or $1150 for the 16-35/2.8 II refurb'd.)

Even if you do "go full frame" some day, you would easily be able to sell off any crop only lenses you might have then, and upgrade to full-frame capable lenses. Lenses retain their value much better than the camera bodies do! Especially Canon OEM lenses.

For full frame, it's different. The 11-24/4 or 16-35/4 IS USM would be my first choices. Probably the latter because it can be used with standard filters (the 11-24 is the widest of the wide... but has a convex front element that prevents standard filters from being mounted). The 16-35mm f4 lens is smaller, lighter, cheaper AND better corrected, sharper than the f2.8 version. With an ultrawide, most people actually don't need f2.8 anyway. With that type lens and for the typical shots being done with them, you're normally stopping down anyway. Personally, my third and fourth choices would be the 17-40/4 or 16-35/2.8 Mark II. (Note: The original 16-35/2.8, if that's what you're looking at refurbished, has more image quality "issues" than any of the above.)

If you're concerned about shooting in low light, you'd do well to choose one of the less expensive lenses and upgrade to the newer camera as soon as possible. Your T2i is now several generations old and there have been big improvements in more recent models, especially their high ISO performance: T6i, T6s or 80D would all be good choices. I used a pair of 7D (essentially the same 18MP sensor as your T2i) for about five years. Great cameras, but I tried to avoid using higher than ISO 6400, preferred to keep to 1600 or lower (3200 and 6400 were usable... but required more post-processing work). Earlier this year I updated to 7D Mark II, 20MP and have actually used them at ISO 8000 and 16000 with surprisingly good, usable results! I do not use the 24MP 80D, which is even newer than the 7DII, but I think it's safe to assume it's at least equally usable at high ISOs.

If you are thinking you will get better results with L-series lenses... you won't necessarily. In fact, part of the definition of L-series is that they must be usable on and compatible with all EOS cameras past, present and future. Because of this, there are no and will never be any EF-S/crop only lenses with a red stripe and "L" painted on them. But this doesn't mean anything about the image quality or performance of EF-S lenses. In fact, many of them rival L-series.... but just aren't blessed with the coveted red stripe.

In fact, there are a lot of non-L lenses that are excellent... can even be better than similar L in some situations. For example, the EF 100/2.8 USM macro lens is identical in build to the EF 180/3.5L USM macro... they even use the same tripod mounting ring (altho it's optional on the 100mm)! The 100mm isn't an L only because it doesn't need or use "exotic lens elements" to produce it's exceptionally high image quality. That's another requirement for a lens to qualify as an L. Similarly the TS-E 45mm and 90mm are not L's.... while the 24/3.5L that's built the same way (and doesn't have as good image quality) is an L because it uses some fancy glass. Or, take a look at the EF 85/1.2L II... a truly dreamy "L" lens for wedding photography and similar portraiture... but slower focusing and less versatile than the smaller, lighter, and much less expensive EF 85/1.8... which is not an "L", but is also an excellent portrait lens that happens to be able to shoot sports and other action too.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

16mm on the Canon is about like a 24mm on a FF camera. In film days this was really wide. You might look at the 10-18mm EFS. It is extremely sharp and well built. Yes it is plastic for the body but I do not abuse my equipment and it is holding up with no problems. for the price you can't beat it. If you drop your camera on the lens the lens will most likely break and not destroy the camera or the mount.
Just a thought.

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

I bought a 6D several weeks ago. I wanted a FF camera to go with my SL1 and 70D. I had a couple of FF compatible lenses, none of them wide angle zoom, so I went shopping. I read dozens of reviews and opinions on the Canon 16-35 lenses, both the f2.8 and the f4. The vast majority of them favored the f:4 for it's sharpness. Sharper and cheaper did it for me. I have only had it for about two weeks but so far it has not disappointed. If the sky stays clear tonight I am going to try it out on the Perseid meteor showers. With what I saved from the difference in price between the F2.8 and the F:4, I just ordered a Rokinon 12mm f:2.8 fisheye.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I would not call it "cheap," but budget friendly!

J. R.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

A great article that illustrates what I have found to be very true.

How do Camera Sensor Sizes Affect Lens Choices?

http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/how-do-camera-sensor-sizes-affect-lens-choices/

J. R.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

The Imaging Resource has a great review comparison for these 2 lenses.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-16-35mm-f4l-is-usm/review/

Surprisingly, the f-4 works better on your crop camera than it does with the Full frame in sharpness. And some argue that the IS on the f4 is an added bonus, where others say it isn't necessary. Both lenses are exceptional.

Here's the question: would you miss the low light f2.8 ? My guess is that both would be very comparable, it comes down to low light. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

First off, if you don't mind spending the money, go for the best quality available. In this case, the L lens, even though some of the EF-S lenses do have very good IQ. They just don't have the same build quality as an L. Unless low light shooting is important to you, the f/4 is the better choice, IMO. Lighter, sharper, and less expensive. I don't know how the T2i performs in low light, but crop sensors usually don't do as well as full frame. If low light is a factor for you then the f/2.8 just might be a better choice. That's the only reason I can think of to buy it. I use my 16-35 f/4 on my 6D and it does an excellent job. If you do upgrade to a FF I doubt that you would miss the f/2.8. The f/4 is also stabilized, something that the 2.8 and the 17-40 are not. Stabilization is a definite plus in low light and narrows the gap between it and the 2.8. The 2.8 will focus better in low light, since it allows more light to enter the camera. Which one is best for you depends on your needs.

David Morrison

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Welcome!
Get the both the refurbished ones and return the one you don't like. IQ is important but sometimes you need the extra light😀
Good luck and have fun!

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

The 16-35/4 L is considered to be Canon's sharpest wide-angle zoom, so if you can live with f/4 (IS can help) and must have a zoom, it is Canon's best.

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

Is "more economical" PC enuf??

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Not a matter of PC just accuracy, "Great build at Lowest Price in class." I can't wait to get mine! And I have a great glass now.

J. R.

RRiggins Loc: Colorado Springs

The 2.8 is actually the better lens as long as it is the newer version, (model II). The extra f-stop does make a difference. it's great for indoor shots of groups and make an excellent scenic landscape lens as well.

Up-Side-Down Loc: Glasgow, Scotland

I believe the 2.8 is due for replacement sometime in the next couple of months.* In which case the price will be somewhat lower towards the end of the year.

*Canon Rumours