Q: Why would anyone bother using an EF 16-35mm f/4L IS on APS-C?

A: Well, why not?

I bought the 16-35 for my 6D, but when I went out shopping to Ginza the other day I decided to use it on my T4i on a whim. It worked surprisingly well as a snapshot lens: the range is just wide enough to be useful, the sharpness and richness of color is spectacular, and the IS is of course very useful in this context. It's heavier than a typical APS-C zoom, yes, but it doesn't really feel that way--maybe it's just me getting used to lugging a 6D+24-105L around all the time, or maybe it's the inner zoom construct of the 16-35 being easier on the hands than an extending zoom like 18-135 STM.

Not that I'd suggest anyone go out and buy this rather expensive lens for their APS-C kit--a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 would probably serve you better--but if you already have both full frame and APS-C, it might be worth trying out.

Ginza 4-chome intersection, Tokyo, a.k.a. the most expensive real estate on Earth ca. 1990.

It's not because a lens is FF that you absolutely need a FF camera and it's not because you have an APS-C camera that you need buying only aps-c lenses !

For my 7D i currently only have FF lenses and for my Fuji X-E1 i have a mix of FF and APS-C lenses.

Actually makes good sense if someone has a FF camera or is planing on going FF in the future. I used the 16-35 f/2.8 for years on my original 1D, then 1D II (1.3 crop sensors) cameras. It is a pain selling lenses when switching from cropped to FF bodies.

hotdog321 wrote:

Actually makes good sense if someone has a FF camera or is planing on going FF in the future.

I don't quite get this reasoning. I tried my 16-35mm f/4 lens on my crop camera and found no real advantage to the 18-55 STM kit lens, which I bought earlier last year. The kit lens on the other hand is lighter and has a more versatile zoom range, esp. towards the tele end. The L lens on the crop camera is simply bulky and heavy.

I understand the point that this means: two EOS cameras with different sensor size - two lenses (instead of one), but it's simply just like two different worlds, where the possibility of using the heavier lens on the crop camera is just a bad compromise, at least in my opinion.

Have I missed anything?

janlive wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

Actually makes good sense if someone has a FF camera or is planing on going FF in the future.

I don't quite get this reasoning. I tried my 16-35mm f/4 lens on my crop camera and found no real advantage to the 18-55 STM kit lens, which I bought earlier last year. The kit lens on the other hand is lighter and has a more versatile zoom range, esp. towards the tele end. The L lens on the crop camera is simply bulky and heavy.

I understand the point that this means: two EOS cameras with different sensor size - two lenses (instead of one), but it's simply just like two different worlds, where the possibility of using the heavier lens on the crop camera is just a bad compromise, at least in my opinion.

Have I missed anything?

I was simply saying that it avoids the hassle and expense of selling the crop sensor lens if someone is planning to go full frame in the future. I found this quite handy when I finally sold my 1D II bodies and bought 5D II bodies in 2009.

hotdog321 wrote:

janlive wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

Actually makes good sense if someone has a FF camera or is planing on going FF in the future.

Have I missed anything?

I was simply saying that it avoids the hassle and expense of selling the crop sensor lens if someone is planning to go full frame in the future. I found this quite handy when I finally sold my 1D II bodies and bought 5D II bodies in 2009.

Thanks for the reply. I'm with you under the condition that the crop camera is only used rarely (or sold or whatever) after the FF camera aquisition, but still ... Even when used only occasionally, owning specialized lenses for the crop camera still makes sense, e.g. when going on a trip and the - let's say - 100D accompanies you, selected for its lesser weight and size compared to the 6D. The whole purpose of taking the smaller camera then would be thwarted by heavy full-frame lenses.

hotdog321 wrote:

Actually makes good sense if someone has a FF camera or is planing on going FF in the future.

I don't quite get this reasoning. I tried my 16-35mm f/4 lens on my crop camera and found no real advantage to the 18-55 STM kit lens, which I bought earlier last year. The kit lens on the other hand is lighter and has a more versatile zoom range, esp. towards the tele end. The L lens on the crop camera is simply bulky and heavy.

I understand the point that this means: two EOS cameras with different sensor size - two lenses (instead of one), but it's simply just like two different worlds, where the possibility of using the heavier lens on the crop camera is just a bad compromise, at least in my opinion.

Have I missed anything?

Question; so how do you think the images would compare between the kit lens and the 16-35 on a 6D? I currently am shooting with a crop sensor but will be moving to FF. When that time comes, the money that I would get for selling my current camera isn't enough to justify selling it. I will keep it an use it along with my new FF camera. So with that in mind, the difference between the kit lens and the 16-35 in your opinion is negligible on a crop. How do you think they would compare on a FF sensor?? For those of us that are planning on moving (soon) to FF, I think it does make sense to look at the FF lenses over the APS-C lenses for the sole reason of flexibility. Sure, the 16-35L is a bit more money than the kit, but you're getting two lenses. On a crop it's a 'normal zoom' being approximately 25-56 and on a FF it's a UW zoom, being 16-35. I just don't see the advantage of the mighty kit lens here though. Sure, it covers most of the zoom range of the L (16-18) is actually a big difference at the wide end. But it just won't give me anything on those days that I want to shoot with my FF camera.

Blessed wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

Actually makes good sense if someone has a FF camera or is planing on going FF in the future.

I don't quite get this reasoning. I tried my 16-35mm f/4 lens on my crop camera and found no real advantage to the 18-55 STM kit lens, which I bought earlier last year. The kit lens on the other hand is lighter and has a more versatile zoom range, esp. towards the tele end. The L lens on the crop camera is simply bulky and heavy.

I understand the point that this means: two EOS cameras with different sensor size - two lenses (instead of one), but it's simply just like two different worlds, where the possibility of using the heavier lens on the crop camera is just a bad compromise, at least in my opinion.

Have I missed anything?

Question; so how do you think the images would compare between the kit lens and the 16-35 on a 6D? I currently am shooting with a crop sensor but will be moving to FF. When that time comes, the money that I would get for selling my current camera isn't enough to justify selling it. I will keep it an use it along with my new FF camera. So with that in mind, the difference between the kit lens and the 16-35 in your opinion is negligible on a crop. How do you think they would compare on a FF sensor?? For those of us that are planning on moving (soon) to FF, I think it does make sense to look at the FF lenses over the APS-C lenses for the sole reason of flexibility. Sure, the 16-35L is a bit more money than the kit, but you're getting two lenses. On a crop it's a 'normal zoom' being approximately 25-56 and on a FF it's a UW zoom, being 16-35. I just don't see the advantage of the mighty kit lens here though. Sure, it covers most of the zoom range of the L (16-18) is actually a big difference at the wide end. But it just won't give me anything on those days that I want to shoot with my FF camera.

I am not sure if I understand your question.

Are you asking for a comparison of 16-35 to 18-55 on the 6D? If so, forget it: 18-55 is an EF-S lens, which means does not even mount on a full frame camera like a 6D.

Or are you asking for a comparison of 16-35 with the 6D's kit lenses? 16-35 is better than 24-105L kit lens in the overlapping 24-35 range, no question. I can't speak personally for the other two 6D kit lenses, 24-105STM and 24-70F4L, but reports suggest 16-35 will be better than 24-105STM and slightly better than 24-70F4L.

Blessed wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

Actually makes good sense if someone has a FF camera or is planing on going FF in the future.

I don't quite get this reasoning. I tried my 16-35mm f/4 lens on my crop camera and found no real advantage to the 18-55 STM kit lens, which I bought earlier last year. The kit lens on the other hand is lighter and has a more versatile zoom range, esp. towards the tele end. The L lens on the crop camera is simply bulky and heavy.

I understand the point that this means: two EOS cameras with different sensor size - two lenses (instead of one), but it's simply just like two different worlds, where the possibility of using the heavier lens on the crop camera is just a bad compromise, at least in my opinion.

Have I missed anything?

Question; so how do you think the images would compare between the kit lens and the 16-35 on a 6D? I currently am shooting with a crop sensor but will be moving to FF. When that time comes, the money that I would get for selling my current camera isn't enough to justify selling it. I will keep it an use it along with my new FF camera. So with that in mind, the difference between the kit lens and the 16-35 in your opinion is negligible on a crop. How do you think they would compare on a FF sensor?? For those of us that are planning on moving (soon) to FF, I think it does make sense to look at the FF lenses over the APS-C lenses for the sole reason of flexibility. Sure, the 16-35L is a bit more money than the kit, but you're getting two lenses. On a crop it's a 'normal zoom' being approximately 25-56 and on a FF it's a UW zoom, being 16-35. I just don't see the advantage of the mighty kit lens here though. Sure, it covers most of the zoom range of the L (16-18) is actually a big difference at the wide end. But it just won't give me anything on those days that I want to shoot with my FF camera.

I am not sure if I understand your question.

Are you asking for a comparison of 16-35 to 18-55 on the 6D? If so, forget it: 18-55 is an EF-S lens, which means does not even mount on a full frame camera like a 6D.

Or are you asking for a comparison of 16-35 with the 6D's kit lenses? 16-35 is better than 24-105L kit lens in the overlapping 24-35 range, no question. I can't speak personally for the other two 6D kit lenses, 24-105STM and 24-70F4L, but reports suggest 16-35 will be better than 24-105STM and slightly better than 24-70F4L.

Actually, it wasn't really a question at all. A previous post suggested of moving to FF, so I made a statement posed as a question. And that statement remains, how good will the images be from the said kit lens (18-55) when mounted to a 6D? Already knowing the answer, EF-S does not mount on FF! My statement being; the 16-35 will produce excellent images on FF or crop, but the EF-S is only good on the latter. So why not use great glass on a crop? Great glass on FF and a little extra reach on the crop vs good glass on a crop and no go on the FF.

After receiving my 16-35mm f/4 L last week to be used on my 6D, I was think about how it would be on my 40D.

I guess I'm not the only one...

I shoot exclusively APS-C at the moment, but will eventually go FF. I would certainly get the 16-35/4L IS as my next lens (I already have 24-70 II and 70-200 II).

Its build quality is loads better than the 18-55 IS (which I also have), and FTM is available too.

"I don't create beauty out of thin air. I merely capture it."