Looking For A Similar Lens To Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens

[tsteezyj]

I'm looking for a similar lens to the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM lens that will fit on my Canon T6i.

Does anyone have any reccomenedations?

Thanks!

[Waddizzle]

Take a look at the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.  It is a great lens.  It has an all-metal body, internal focusing and zooming.  It is probably one of the best EF-S lenses out there.

[shadowsports]

Some possible options:

Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8

Sigma DC 18-35 f1.8 Art <<< (nice lens)

Sigma DC 17-50 f2.8

Sigma DC 17-70 f2.8~4 (only mentioning this one cause I owned it)

First 3 are my top choices.  I might typically recommend sticking with Canon, but there isn't much there in this focal length comparable to "L" glass.  The Sigma Art lens has a proven track record. I would recommend pairing the T6i with an APS-C lens due to your focal length requirement.  It all comes down to buget and with lenses, you get what you pay for.   

Let's see what others say.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@tsteezyj wrote:

I'm looking for a similar lens to the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM lens that will fit on my Canon T6i.

Does anyone have any reccomenedations?

Thanks!

---

I guess we're assuming that by "similar" you mean "having approximately the same field of view on your T6i as the EF 16-35mm f/4L lens has on a full-frame camera". Because the 16-35 will certainly "fit" on a T6i or any other APS-C camera. It's the other way around (an EF-S lens on a FF camera) that doesn't work.

[ebiggs1]

I don't know how good the f4 version of the 16-35mm is, since I have never used one.  I do know I will not buy a f2.8 16-35mm version again. I do have that version and replaced it with the excellent Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 FF Lens for Canon EF.  You will like the Tok!

[tsteezyj]

Thanks for the reply! 

I'm trying to get a similar look when shooting portraits to the photo I attached.

Looks like a wide angle lense but I think it goes back to the focal length you're talking about.

Would any of the lenses you mentioned help achieving this look?

[ebiggs1]

If it is a 16-35mm WA zoom is what you want the 16-28mm Tok is pretty close.  I have heard, no personal experience with but,  the f4 version of the Canon 16-35mm WA zoom is a pretty good lens. I wanted the faster f2.8 aperture, that is why I opted for the Tokina over the Canon.

My copy of the f2.8 Canon is unusable at f2.8. I sell photos so I can not have blurry images.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I don't know how good the f4 version of the 16-35mm is, since I have never used one.  I do know I will not buy a f2.8 16-35mm version again. I do have that version and replaced it with the excellent Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 FF Lens for Canon EF.  You will like the Tok!

---

I've been very happy with the f/4 version. I bought it because it was considered to be a bit sharper than the original release of the f/2.8, which was current at the time. (And because I saw it as an outdoor lens. For the event photography I was doing at the time, I rarely used a WA lens indoors.) When the f/2.8 Mk II came out, it was highly regarded by the critics, who pronounced it at least as sharp as the f/4. Frankly, Ernie, I thought I remembered you as one of those praising it at the time, but I guess I was wrong about that.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I don't know how good the f4 version of the 16-35mm is, since I have never used one.  I do know I will not buy a f2.8 16-35mm version again. I do have that version and replaced it with the excellent Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 FF Lens for Canon EF.  You will like the Tok!

---

I've been very happy with the f/4 version. I bought it because it was considered to be a bit sharper than the original release of the f/2.8, which was current at the time. (And because I saw it as an outdoor lens. For the event photography I was doing at the time, I rarely used a WA lens indoors.) When the f/2.8 Mk II came out, it was highly regarded by the critics, who pronounced it at least as sharp as the f/4. Frankly, Ernie, I thought I remembered you as one of those praising it at the time, but I guess I was wrong about that.

---

When I am shooting at f/2.8, the edges of the frame are usually outside of the DoF.  In other words, soft corners are a "don't care condition" as far as I am concerned.  What I focus on is always tack sharp.  When I want sharp corners, I stop down the aperture.  

"All gear has limits!"

Famous last words, that are actually good advice.  Take advantage of those limits.  If the limits are too confining go for you.......  

[Waddizzle]

---

@tsteezyj wrote:

Thanks for the reply! 

I'm trying to get a similar look when shooting portraits to the photo I attached.

Looks like a wide angle lense but I think it goes back to the focal length you're talking about.

Would any of the lenses you mentioned help achieving this look?

---

What is not clear is what type angle of view, on what type of image sensor,  are you looking for?  Your sample shot looks to be much wider than 16mm on an APS-C sensor.  I loved my EF-S 10-22mm lens, which has a 77mm filter thread.  Sharp!