Canon 16-35mm on a Canon 750D

S

Scottm2588

Messages
13
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
First off - apologies if there is a previous thread on this, still getting to grips with the forum.

I am looking at upgrading from the 18-55mm kit lens (I will be keeping this) that I got with my 750D and have been researching my options. Unfortunately a lot of the information I'm finding online is 4 or 5 years old so I'm not sure how accurate it is nowadays. Most folk seem to think the 16-35 is pointless on a crop sensor but despite not being as wide I'd like to think it will be sharper/produce a better quality image than the kit lens.

The two lenses I have been looking at is the Canon 16-35 and the Canon 10-22, although I'm more than happy to consider anything else that comes recommended. I do plan to move onto full-frame in the future but will most likely be sticking with the crop sensor for the next year or so. Is it worth my time investing in the 16-35 at this moment in time or would I be best looking at 10-22 or something else that is better used with the crop sensor?

My concern is that I purchase the 10-35 and in a year or so's time I go to sell it to find a full frame and lens and lose a lot of money on it.

FWIW I shoot 95% landscapes and whilst my kit lens has done me proud so far I do feel like I have come to a point I'd like to invest in better glass. I mostly shoot at the wider end of my kit lens and understand that 16mm becomes roughly 26mm(?) on my 750D. I also use my Lee Filter system (100mm) so ideally any recommendations should be compatible with that.

Any advice is appreciated :)
 
If you want wider then consider the Canon 10-18 STM. The 16-35 is a great lens but unless you plan on upgrading to a FF body i would save a shed load of cash and go for the 10-18. The money you saved could potentially get you a 70-200 F4L (non IS) unless you have that covered already? The 70-200 is perfect for landscape also.
 
Last edited:
Scottm2588 said:
I mostly shoot at the wider end of my kit lens and understand that 16mm becomes roughly 26mm(?) on my 750D.
Click to expand...
I can't tell whether or not you understand this. So I'll assume you don't. Apologies if I'm wrong, but at least it's a right side failure.

A 16mm lens is a 16mm lens. Mount it on a full frame camera, mount it on a crop sensor camera, or take it off the camera, and the focal length is still 16mm. It's a physical property of the lens.

What does change is the field of view. Mount the 16mm lens on a crop sensor camera and the field of view is narrower than it would be if you mounted the same lens on a full frame camera. In fact 16mm on a crop sensor Canon gives you a field of view which is comparable to what you'd see if you mounted a 26mm lens on a full frame camera. But you don't have a full frame camera so the comparison is of questionable benefit, I would suggest.

A 16mm lens on your 750D will be modestly wider than an 18mm lens on the same camera. It doesn't matter whether one is EF and one is EF-S: all that matters is 16mm vs 18mm. A 10mm lens on your 750D would give you a field of view roughly the sme as a 16mm lens on full frame.

Scottm2588 said:
I do plan to move onto full-frame in the future ...
Click to expand...
Why? What do you think it will do for your photography?
 
StewartR said:
I can't tell whether or not you understand this. So I'll assume you don't. Apologies if I'm wrong, but at least it's a right side failure.

A 16mm lens is a 16mm lens. Mount it on a full frame camera, mount it on a crop sensor camera, or take it off the camera, and the focal length is still 16mm. It's a physical property of the lens.

What does change is the field of view. Mount the 16mm lens on a crop sensor camera and the field of view is narrower than it would be if you mounted the same lens on a full frame camera. In fact 16mm on a crop sensor Canon gives you a field of view which is comparable to what you'd see if you mounted a 26mm lens on a full frame camera. But you don't have a full frame camera so the comparison is of questionable benefit, I would suggest.

A 16mm lens on your 750D will be modestly wider than an 18mm lens on the same camera. It doesn't matter whether one is EF and one is EF-S: all that matters is 16mm vs 18mm. A 10mm lens on your 750D would give you a field of view roughly the sme as a 16mm lens on full frame.


Why? What do you think it will do for your photography?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed response Stewart!

I probably didn't explain that very well, I do understand what you have described in your first point.

In terms of upgrading to the full frame - this is simply down to my 750D being purchased as an 'entry level' camera for me to effectively learn on. I opted for this after spending about a month reading up on my choices and the 750D seemed to be best for ease of use whilst providing me with the best quality for the price. I simply view the move onto full-frame as a natural progression as I look to upgrade my gear and I feel that I would have a better variety of options in terms of lenses. If I was to learn over the next year or so there are no benefits to it at all I certainly wouldn't just do it for the sake of it. I am mostly self taught and I'm always happy to hear if I'm wrong or not thinking along the right lines so feel free to provide more advice on this :)

I suppose my main question is would the 10-22 provide me with image sharpness/contrast akin to the 16-35 whilst offering me a wider focal length range? Or would the 16-35mm be a better investment if I plan to go FF in the future? With me now starting to delve into the world of printing my work I'm simply looking at what sort of a lens would be an improvement on what I have. If the 10-22 was kept in good condition and would recoup a fair whack of what I paid for it in the future then I'd be happy to invest in that and sell it on when the time comes to upgrade my body.

As I mentioned in the original post I'm more than happy to have people suggest other lenses apart from the two Canon ones I've mentioned.
 
If you shoot mainly landscapes you will be stopping the lens down to F11-16 i'd expect so the benefits of the 16-35 will be less noticeable although it is an excellent lens. For an immediate gain, the 10-18 (or 10-22) gives you an ultrawide field of view so it depends on whether you feel the current 18mm widest fov you get now is limiting you?

Having a wider lens does give you some more creative options over the 18-55 but you have to think carefully about your composition so you have actual foreground interest and not just a really Wide photo of nothing much :0)
 
stevelmx5 said:
If you shoot mainly landscapes you will be stopping the lens down to F11-16 i'd expect so the benefits of the 16-35 will be less noticeable although it is an excellent lens. For an immediate gain, the 10-18 (or 10-22) gives you an ultrawide field of view so it depends on whether you feel the current 18mm widest fov you get now is limiting you?

Having a wider lens does give you some more creative options over the 18-55 but you have to think carefully about your composition so you have actual foreground interest and not just a really Wide photo of nothing much :0)
Click to expand...

I have been experiencing some limitations with the 18-55 in terms of FOV, in particular when trying to include some interesting foreground! I don't tend to shoot wide open spaces with little interest in the foreground so nothing to worry about in that sense :)

It seems the more I research the more unsure I become. The switch to FF will no doubt happen at some point in the future as I look to upgrade my camera body so I'm torn on whether to invest for the future or invest for the short term. The pros for the 10-22 are obviously the greater variety in focal range and the ability to shoot at a wider angle, cons are that this wont be compatible with a FF body and I'm not overly clued up on the sort of money I could get for this say a year down the line. The pros for the 16-35 (from what I've read) appear to be image quality in general but I'm not sure it's going to be enough to tempt me, another pro is the fact it could be utilised on a FF body when the time comes. Cons are obviously the lack of focal length range and of course the price haha.

I'm probably swaying more towards 10-22 in all honesty based on what I've been reading. It does seem to be fairly well thought of and I'm not sure the improvement in image quality with the 16-35 is enough to sway me in that direction.
 
As above, the 10-18 is a bargain uwa and from the example I've seen it delivers excellent results without being overly heavy on the 750D, as the 16-35 may be. Realistically, the 16-35 is a much better lens than the 18-55 but you will only be gaining 2mm at the wide end and losing 20mm at tele. You would be future-proofing your lens but I'd personally go for the 10-18 now and accept losing some value down the line if you do ever upgrade to FF.
 
Can I ask why you're over looking the arguably better and newer 10-18? It's been suggested twice now and you don't seem to acknowledge it. I personally think you'd be crazy to simply pass it by.
 
minnnt said:
Can I ask why you're over looking the arguably better and newer 10-18? It's been suggested twice now and you don't seem to acknowledge it. I personally think you'd be crazy to simply pass it by.
Click to expand...

Haha, I was waiting on that! I should've added that I am also eyeing that up and it was actually my next question, as my dilemma now seems to be which to choose out of those two...

I'm guessing your answer would be the 10-18 :)

Based on the reviews I'm reading it certainly seems to be the favoured of the two but the majority of these reviews make a big deal about the fact the 10-18 has IS, something I rarely or never use. If I was shooting handheld it's more likely I'd be using the 18-55.
 
IS is handy as you may not always have a tripod with you. I don't really see how it could be a bad thing? Even if it spends 99% of the time switched off?

Smaller, lighter, cheaper and IS. It's probably not as well built as the 10-22 though.

Quick look on Google would suggest £229 (£20 cash back also) for a new 10-18 vs £250 for a good condition used 10-22 at Wex. I guess you pay your money and you take your chances but I would go for the 10-18 personally. If you can find a well cared for 10-18 then you will save a few quid on top of the above saving.
 
minnnt said:
IS is handy as you may not always have a tripod with you. I don't really see how it could be a bad thing? Even if it spends 99% of the time switched off?

Smaller, lighter, cheaper and IS. It's probably not as well built as the 10-22 though.

Quick look on Google would suggest £229 (£20 cash back also) for a new 10-18 vs £250 for a good condition used 10-22 at Wex. I guess you pay your money and you take your chances but I would go for the 10-18 personally. If you can find a well cared for 10-18 then you will save a few quid on top of the above saving.
Click to expand...

Yup, absolutely not a bad thing, just not something I would base my choice on which seems to be the case for a few of the reviews I read.

By all accounts it appears the image quality is fairly similar but as you say one is built a bit more solidly with the other utilising newer technology. Certainly food for thought and I will browse through some more comparisons then make my decision, it certainly seems thus far that the 10-18 is the favourite.

Cheers for your input, much appreciated!
 
Decided to go for the 10-18mm and get myself a new high spec laptop (desperately needed btw) with the spare cash.

I have a feeling I have made the right choice. ;)
 
minnnt said:
If you want wider then consider the Canon 10-18 STM. The 16-35 is a great lens but unless you plan on upgrading to a FF body i would save a shed load of cash and go for the 10-18. The money you saved could potentially get you a 70-200 F4L (non IS) unless you have that covered already? The 70-200 is perfect for landscape also.
Click to expand...

10-18 is a good shout! Recommend it wholeheartedly!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top