about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
140 337761 Oct 4, 2013
Recommended By Average Price
91% of reviewers $1,265.28
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.64
7.80
8.9
ef_16-35_28_1_

Specifications:
To meet the growing demand of digital SLR owners, this ultra-wide-angle zoom offers a broader view, fast aperture, and closer focusing down to 11 in. (.28m). The first EF wide-angle zoom to combine three aspherical elements and Canonís UD glass, the lens remains compact while providing superior image quality across its range. Constructed to pro standards, itís also highly resistant to dust and moisture.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9  next
       †††
grizzlywon
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Apr 14, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 234
Review Date: Oct 4, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $900.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Built like a tank. Awesome quite focus.
Cons:
None that you can really complain about with a super wide angle lens. Lightroom fixes most issues.

Having 2.8 helps a lot in low light. This is my main commercial lens for buildings. Awesome lens and can be had for around $900 used.

Oct 4, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add grizzlywon to your Buddy List  
rater
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 26, 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 22
Review Date: Apr 17, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Wide and good quality lens
Cons:
A bit soft and prone to flare.

This was my first L lens and I was very happy with it. Actually, during 7 years has been one of my most used lenses on a cropped sensor camera. I think that a good used one is a great value (prize is low given the mk II version of the lens).

Now that I have moved to full frame camera, the corners were a bit too soft for my taste so I sold it, but I already miss this nice L lens.


Apr 17, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rater to your Buddy List  
Kevin Sherman
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1045
Review Date: Jan 19, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $900.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Wide wide wide. Sharp. Fast.
Cons:
Lots of distortion, good amount of vignetting.

Great value, the version II brought the price of the older version down. Was nice on the APS-C 1.6x crop 7D. Pretty sharp, shot mostly at f2.8 unless I was doing some architectural work. Fast, wide, creates some fun images.

Jan 19, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Kevin Sherman to your Buddy List  
studioaw
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 11, 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 11, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Build quality, IQ, Focal length, sharpness, light but well built, great walk about lens.
Cons:
Very soft around the edges at 2.8 on a full frame body!

This is one of my favourite lenses. Build quality is very good, along with IQ and versatility.

I've recently sold this lens as I needed the funds for dedicated portrait lens due to my changing photographic style. It was such a hard decision, and do miss it for some of it's unique qualities. I will defiantly buy this or the mark 2 version again when funds allow!

I used this lens on a full frame body, mainly for landscapes and photojournalist work. 16mm on a FF body is very wide and IMO one of it's best qualities. Some of the perspectives that you can capture are amazing and set it apart from the 24mm range of lenses.

Sharpness and contrast are great, especially when stepped down past 5.6. At lower apertures especially at 2.8 the outer sharpness, particulary in the corners is soft and a fair bit of detail is lost because of this.

This is not really a major negative point. I shoot alot of low light street photography so I often use 2.8. As long as your subjects are sharp the soft edges actualy enhance the image. Only dedicated landscape photographers may find this an issue.

This lens is one of the lightest L lenses that I've used. Really portable and great with a 5D or 1D body.

On the used Market you can pick these up relatively cheap and are great value for money. I highly recommend this lens.

Alex





Jun 11, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add studioaw to your Buddy List  
krodger
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 12, 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 17, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Quick, accurate auto-focus, good contrast, good colour, nice bokeh.
Cons:

This was my first Canon "L" series lens. I am using it now on a Canon 60D, with an APS-C sensor. So far, I am very pleased with the results. I can't wait to try it on a camera with a full frame sensor. It blows the other lenses I have out of the water, and this is now the lens I use most frequently. I love the sharpness and quickness of the autofocus. It is very good in low light, and the lack of IS is not missed. I am not an expert when it comes down to the technicalities of lenses, but there is some fuzziness in the corners apparent at large apertures. At the 16mm range of the lens, there is a lot of distortion, but this shows up in my other lens as well. I had compared this lens to the EF 35mm f/1.4 L lens, and thought I would get more use out of this lens. I am happy with my decision.

The manual for the lens specifies that it needs a filter to completely seal the lens. These tend to be expensive, but what do you expect when you need a 82mm filter size.


May 17, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add krodger to your Buddy List  
Todd Klassy
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 290
Review Date: Sep 27, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Overall very sharp, great color rendition, & super fast--everything you would expect from a L-lens.
Cons:
Corners are a little soft when used wide open (f/2.8), especially on extra large sensors (5D Mark II--but not so bad on 5D Mark I).

Overall a very good lens--my first L lens, which I have now owned for approximately than five years. I chose this lens because of its focal length range, maximum aperture, and focal length. I also like the fact that it uses a 77mm threaded filter.

Images are crisp and sharp, and colors are always wonderful. At 35mm is doesn't perform as well as the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, but you wouldn't expect it too since it is a zoom lens. Its performance at 35mm is still very good. Where it really shines is from 16mm to 24mm. It can get a little soft in the corners when shooting at f/2.8--especially at 16mm--when used on a full-frame camera with lots of megapixels (think 5D2).

I really like this lens and expect it to be part of my camera bag for a good while to come.

Here are a few examples of photographs I have taken with this lens:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/4655366525/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/2961779225/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/69688466/


Sep 27, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Todd Klassy to your Buddy List  
Damon Brodie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 17, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Review Date: Apr 26, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $900.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: 77mm Filter Size Fast Bright
Cons:
not very sharp at edges - wide open

I bought this lens used, and deliberately over the mkII version for the 77mm filter size.

I already had the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8, so I liked the idea of having all of the lens be able to share the same Cokin mount. Combined with the price I paid for a mint condition used copy of this lens and that sealed the deal for me.

I've used this lens a lot, handheld indoors with my kids and for shooting video on the 5D2 and for some awesome perspective shots.

I used to own the 10-22mm Canon on my 40D this lens, while a lot heavier, feels more like it is built like a tank.



Apr 26, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Damon Brodie to your Buddy List  
Ric444
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 10, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 10, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $700.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very sharp at f2.8, Very nice tones and contrats
Cons:
None so far

What an amazing lens!
I own several L lenses, including the 24-70L, 135L, 70-200L.
However, this lens is becoming my favourite very quickly for the the following reasons:
- the 24-70 is too heavy for a walk-around lens,
- the 135L is too narrow and good for portraits mostly,
- the 70-200L also too narrow for most scenarios.

The 16-35 is just perfect size and weight for all day shooting at museams and streets.

I picked up this lens used for a very good price and in a like new condition. I keep this lens in my 5DII most of the time.

The sharpness is excellent, except a the edges at f2.8. But not a problem given that I have seen really bad wide angle lenses: I own a Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 as well. I won't say anything about it, other than the darkness make one appreciate the light even more.

Tones and contrast are excellent as well.




Apr 10, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Ric444 to your Buddy List  
zolbs
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 3, 2009
Location: China
Posts: 19
Review Date: Jan 12, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Solid build, extra-wide, 2.8
Cons:
Is it worth all the cash?

I bought this lens about 3 months ago. To do so, I swapped some lenses around, including a 17-40.

The 16-35 has been great. Very pleased.

But at the same time, I just reviewed a number of my best shots from the 16-35 and the previous 17-40. Honestly, I can hardly tell any difference. Obviously it is a plus to have the extra two stops on the 16-35, particularly in low-light.. But I really question if it was worth the added cash?

I keep thinking, ONE 16-35 equals ...
- A 17-40 plus a 135L for portraits
- Or, a 24-70 2.8 and 85, 1.8 (just about)

I'm not knocking the 16-35.. Just wondering if it's worth the added cost.

Cheers.


Jan 12, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add zolbs to your Buddy List  
primeshot
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 1, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $830.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Great build and center sharpness. Fast focus and the best value on the used market.
Cons:
Soft corners, but only at 2.8.

For the price I paid I got 16mm at f2.8 and "L" quality all around. This is one of the best deals on the used market. This lens is on my full frame camera most of the time.

Nov 1, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add primeshot to your Buddy List  
James Wei
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 12, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Review Date: Mar 18, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Fast zoom with versatility
Cons:
Unsharp corners even stopping down

A zoom that I had more than 10 years. Despite its weakness in unsharp corners and poor flare performance, the zoom provides convinience and reliability when it comes to travel photography.



My image gallery of 16-35/2.8

http://www.roentarre.com/Gallery.aspx?id=1&lid=6

http://www.roentarre.com/Gallery.aspx?id=1&lid=6&pid=2

http://www.roentarre.com/Gallery.aspx?id=1&lid=6&pid=3

http://www.roentarre.com/Gallery.aspx?id=1&lid=6&pid=4

http://www.roentarre.com/Gallery.aspx?id=1&lid=6&pid=5

http://www.roentarre.com/Gallery.aspx?id=1&lid=6&pid=6


Mar 18, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add James Wei to your Buddy List  
Jess Edward
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 31, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1955
Review Date: Jan 27, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: 16mm, f2.8, fast focus, weather sealing, solid build
Cons:
slightly soft corners (although I havent compared this to the mk2 version) nothing that has ever actually ruined a photograph for me, just something I noticed once or twice.

I have had this lens for a while now. I got it second hand and I love it. I tend to use it quite often these days since I have been shooting a lot of hardcore shows.

I upgraded from the 17-40 f4 and I didnt think that extra 1mm would make that much of a difference but it really does. Quite often I find myself zooming it in ever so slightly so its not right at 16mm. It is nice to know that 16mm is available if I need it though.

I have found a few different times that the corners were a bit soft which is something I had read about this lens before I bought it. I havent lost any shots because of this so it really doesnt bother me that much.

The best part about this lens is that you can find it used for fairly cheap since the mk2 version has been out for a while now. I picked mine up for around $800CDN which is an amazing price.


Jan 27, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jess Edward to your Buddy List  
LennartW
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 6, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 90
Review Date: Jan 15, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $900.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Light, Small, Fast, F2.8
Cons:
Tends to have soft corners

As it is always: you get what you pay for.

And if you buy this lens, you know what you want and you get what you want.

On a documentary, this is the lens I would use straight out of the bag.
It is good for sports because it has the two key facts: F2.8 and a fast focus.

The IQ @ F2.8 is good between 20-35 and OK at 16.
Stopping down to F3.2 or F3.5 is absolutely usable for my needs and for the circumstances I am working under (bad light/no light).

If you want the perfect WW zoom, get a Nikon but this is by far the best WW zoom you can get for under 900$.


Jan 15, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add LennartW to your Buddy List  
terminator
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 273
Review Date: Nov 20, 2008 Recommend? no | Price paid: $635.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: build, 16mm, size, f/2.8
Cons:
soft at 35mm

My copy is second hand. I noticed immediately that it is very soft at 35mm - softer than any of my other L zooms such as 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200L f/2.8 IS. Stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 does not help much.

Other than the softness, everything else about this lens is positive even though I am not a fan of wide angle.

I am thinking about upgrade to Mark II, but its 82mm and price tag really piss me off.


Nov 20, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add terminator to your Buddy List  
SR777
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 9, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 367
Review Date: Nov 8, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,350.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Build quality, colour rendition, sharpness
Cons:
None

I bought this lens 2.5 years ago as a standard walk-around zoom for the 20D (1.6 crop). Since then, this lens is also my walk-around for the 1D2 (1.3 crop). The lens is sharp wide open (2.8) and gets much, much sharper when stopped down 1/3 stop. The colour rendition is great. The lens feels solid. I haven't found any reason to replace this with the 16-35 II.

Nov 8, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add SR777 to your Buddy List  
Tudor Seulean
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 23, 2008
Location: Romania
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 6, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: great sharpness
Cons:
corners blurry at 16mm

I posted a review on this lens a few months ago, right after I bought it. At that point I was so disappointed by the soft corners at 16mm that I wrote a very negative review, saying I did not recommend it.
I have looked for that review to amend it if possible, but can't find it anymore...
The reason I am posting this new review is to let everyone know that after using this lens for a few months (to photograph architecture mainly), I have changed my opinion radically, namely I am now convinced that this is an extraordinary lens from all points of view (except price, perhaps, which is a bit steep!). It is at its sharpest stopped at 8. The corners may be a bit soft if stopped at 5.6 or 4, etc., but it's really not an issue. However, they are indeed soft at 16mm - but that's not an issue with me - my subjects are usually in the center of the shot, not at the corners. It is sharper in the center (but not the corners) than the Canon EF-S 10-22mm (which I also own), but only just. The 10-22mm is consistently sharp across the board, even in the corners, except at 18mm or more, where the 16-35mm is sharper.
Great lens!


Nov 6, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Tudor Seulean to your Buddy List  

†††



Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
140 337761 Oct 4, 2013
Recommended By Average Price
91% of reviewers $1,265.28
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.64
7.80
8.9
ef_16-35_28_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9  next