English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-18 14:41:49 · 2 answers · asked by James M 1 in Consumer Electronics Cameras

Sorry I hit the wronk key I ment the Canon 16 - 35 L Is it good for groop in door low light pictures

2006-07-19 00:34:54 · update #1

Sorry I hit the wrong key ,I ment the Canon 16 - 35 L Is it good for groop indoor low light pictures, Or should I buy the 10 - 22 I have a choice of either one at a nice price.

2006-07-19 00:38:53 · update #2

2 answers

There's a 16-35mm f/2.8 L, a 17-40mm f/4 L, and even a discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8 L, but I've never heard of a 16-36mm version.
This focal range is super wide on a film camera/ full frame sensor, which is great for landscapes, architecture and such.
On a 30D or 350D, these lenses become normal zooms - great walk around lenses.
---
edit in response to your edit:
The 16-35 is your lens. I have a similar Nikon setup; I use a D200 (1.5 crop factor) with a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. The wide end (effectively 25mm), in combination with the stellar performance at f/2.8 make it ideal for indoor shots.
The Canon 10-22 would be better for landscapes. You don't need the extreme wide angle for indoor people shots. Also, the 10-22mm is a much slower lens: f/3.5-4.5. That's roughly a full stop difference. And I'm guessing that you'd have to use the 10-22 at f/5.6 to get the image quality of the 16-35 at f/2.8, so for all intents and purposes, let's call it 2 stops slower. In poor lighting, that's the difference between getting clean ISO 800 shots and noisy ISO 3200 pictures.
Yep, get the 16-35mm.

2006-07-18 19:20:25 · answer #1 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 0 0

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/axzVI

You haven't specified which version of the 16-35 you are considering. I believe the 17-40 outperforms the original 16-35 in terms of sharpness, but the new Mark II version 16-35 is the best of the three. You really need to think about how important that extra stop of light is to you, because it's an expensive feature. If you mostly want to use it on a tripod shooting landscapes, then there is no reason at all to want a faster lens. If you think you would use that extra bit of speed and you have the money, then go for it.

2016-04-04 17:21:42 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers