about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
122 348177 Jun 12, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
92% of reviewers $1,502.46
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.75
7.99
9.1
16-35II

Specifications:
The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is a high performance, water-resistant, and ultra wide-angle Canon L-series lens. It has been specifically designed for improved edge-to-edge image quality that will meet the strict requirements of professional and high-end amateur photographers. It features 3 high-precision aspherical lens elements, each of a different type: ground, replica and GMo for even better image quality than the original EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM. The circular aperture produces a beautiful and natural background blur when shooting at wider apertures. Other features include internal focusing, a ring type USM (Ultra Sonic Monitor), and new AF algorithms for fast and quiet autofocusing.

Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 16-35mm f/2.8

Lens Construction: 16 elements in 12 groups

Diagonal Angle of View: 10810'-63

Focus Adjustment: AF with full-time manual

Closest Focusing Distance: 0.92 ft./0.28m

Filter Size: 82mm, P=0.75mm/1 filter

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.5 in. x 4.4 in./ 88.5mm x 111.6mm


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8  next
      
daryl.cheshire
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 12, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,800.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: awesome lens, can't fault it. Cannot find any 'softening' at the edges and works well at f/2.8 I like how the zoom element is small enough to move within the lens body so it doesn't extend like a telephoto zoom.
Cons:
bit expensive



Jun 12, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add daryl.cheshire to your Buddy List  
dkyeah
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 10, 2013
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 26, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,300.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Good AF, quite sharp, internal zoom, smooth AF and zoom rings, weather sealed
Cons:
Not as good as Nikon 14-24 2.8, CA under some conditions

Since I bought this lens my 24-70 2.8 stays at my studio most of the time when I'm out shooting weddings. It's noticeably sharper than my 24-70 2.8 and slightly less imposant/heavy. Though it's built like a tank and weather sealed.
I hesitated with the 17-40 because of the price, well I don't regret buying this lens, especially as 2.8 can come in really handy when shooting inside.

If you want to see sample images, you can go to this link: http://quentindecaillet.com/blog/4659-photographe-couple-valais-aurelie-vitor-champex.html All of the pictures were shot either with the 16-35mm 2.8 II or the 85mm 1.2.


Mar 26, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add dkyeah to your Buddy List  
Carles77
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 19, 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 18, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,300.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Versatility, sunburst closed, high IQ on center, colors
Cons:
very bad at 30-35mm, soft corners, distortion, too big

This lens is must have for me no matter the negative aspects most of my photos are done with this lens so really nice one.

Feb 18, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Carles77 to your Buddy List  
jrobichaud
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Feb 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 359
Review Date: Jan 1, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

Pros: 2.8 and uses front filters
Cons:
poor IQ wider than 20mm

I am so disappointed in this lens! I have owned 3 different versions and all are unusable on the outer 25% wider than 20mm with groups of people. At no focal length or aperture can this lens compete with the 24-70mm 2.8 mk II. (or compete with the Tokina 16-28mm 2.8).
Please Canon, do something about this! Nikon's 14-24mm blows this away to the point that it makes more sense to give up AF and open aperture metering if edges are important.


Jan 1, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jrobichaud to your Buddy List  
Erik_J
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 31, 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 207
Review Date: Oct 11, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: The zoom range, Colours and build, Takes filter
Cons:
Sarpness wide open and in the corners

It's a rather nice super wide zoom with a good range. But it could be a bit sharper in the corners and edges.

Oct 11, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Erik_J to your Buddy List  
vmirage
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 29, 2010
Location: N/A
Posts: 3
Review Date: Jul 29, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,475.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent focusing, Sharp
Cons:

Upgraded from a 24-105L and I was surprised at how much better the performance is with this lens. It focuses like a laser and quickly every time, whereas the 24-105 would search and miss very often especially in dimmer light. The build quality is also better and feels less plasticky and more solid.

I mostly do landscape work and unless I decide to spend $2k+ on some primes (like the 14mm) I don't think this lens will leave my camera for the next 2-5 years.


Jul 29, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add vmirage to your Buddy List  
Lunchb0x8
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 19, 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 141
Review Date: Apr 7, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,450.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Fast focus, sharp and clear images, no CA in my copy.
Cons:
N/A

I picked up this lens from a local dealer on Boxing day thanks to their 10% off all lenses and bodies.

Since picking it up with a 24-105 f/4L I find I use this lens almost exclusively.

Takes great shots, 35mm on my old 650D allowed for some nice up close shots of people in party environments and dropping it to 16mm allowed me to pickup most of the room/deck of people without putting me out on the wet grass.

Without a doubt this lens is going to be a staple of my kit, especially since acquiring a 5DMkIII.

When it eventually dies (which I think it might with some of my trips I have planned) I will gladly buy another.

This is a great lens for most everything from landscapes to just picking up snaps in a room/bar environment.


Apr 7, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Lunchb0x8 to your Buddy List  
Pierre_B
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 21, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Review Date: Mar 19, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,400.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Great optics, quality build
Cons:
Wish the focal length didn't double over the 24-70. Something like a 14-24 would be nice.

Still a slightly expensive lens, but as always, you get what you pay for. I'm mainly an urban photographer and a music photographer. While I only sparingly use it for shows, this is my go to lens for urban walkarounds. I love getting up close to things and people to capture to great moments, and nothing says "Ohhh" like shooting a wide cityscape

Here are some examples of the beauty of this lens:

35mm, f/2.8, ISO 6400, 1/6 shutter
http://pierrebphoto.com/2013/03/urban-the-old-boat-montreal-urban-photography/



Mar 19, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Pierre_B to your Buddy List  
juankgigo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 17, 2013
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 35
Review Date: Mar 7, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Fast, accurate, well built.
Cons:
Expensive, very large filter size, a bit heavy but is expected on a lens like this.

I got this lens about a year ago and can't stop using it! I do love the zoom range of this lens especially when used on a FF camera. I find this lens attached to my 5D most of the time and love the fact that it can even be used as a macro lens, well, not so, but the minimum focusing distance is quite good for a wide angle. This lens is built like a tank and is fully weather sealed when used with a filter. Which by the way is an expensive filter, I went and bought my self a Canon polarizing filter and I am not impressed with the results, I would have prefered to buy a German make but it was more than $100 over the Canon filter.

Over all an excelent lens.


Mar 7, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add juankgigo to your Buddy List  
tororo
Offline
Image Upload: On

Registered: May 26, 2010
Location: Japan
Posts: 29
Review Date: Feb 17, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Low CAs, 2.8, 16mm, USM, build quality, weather shield
Cons:
Flare, filter size, weight

My very good copy of 17-40L started to have some focus issue after years of heavy use so I looked for another good copy of 17-40L but no luck even after trying several new copies. I gave up and decided to go for 16-35mm 2.8L II instead. I tried just a few new copies and was able to find a very good copy without any decentering issue.
Comparing with 17-40L, I immediately noticed that 16-35L II is more prone to flare but it has less CAs. 17-40L is easier to handle due to its light weight and smaller filter size. However, it is actually nice to have 2.8 for more versatile photography with ultra wide angle.

Here are some sample shots.

16mm at f2.8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7608161602/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7822619012/

30-35mm at f8-11:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8075548587/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7597698790/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8073764186/

16-20mm at f8-11:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8081338608/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7602241386/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8079647921/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8077093848/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7667436148/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7655255836/


Feb 17, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add tororo to your Buddy List  
Todd Klassy
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 290
Review Date: Nov 9, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,699.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Much better than its predecessor. Nice colors and contrast. Lightweight, but durable as a 'L' lens should be. Great lens.
Cons:
Not as sharp as I would like wide open at 35mm. BIG, expensive filter size.

The first 'L' lens I ever purchased was the first incarnation of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM and I was very pleased with the results, especially when mated to a variety of different Canon dSLR cameras, including the 20D, 50D, 5D, and 1D Mark III. However, once I moved to a camera with more megapixels, such as the 5D Mark II and Mark III, the quality of those images began to suffer. That's why I purchased the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. And I've never regretted the purchase.

I do most of my work in dirty, dusty places in the rural parts of Montana photographing ranches, cowboys, agriculture and the like, and I'm very happy, that like its predecessor, this lens is weather sealed and is built with the typical Canon 'L' lens ruggedness. Montana photography means I do a lot of landscape photography, and I feel the color and contrast of this lens is much better than the first version. It has a snappy autofocus, and the lens is very lightweight.

For me, 16mm to 35mm is the perfect wide angle lens. And although it suffers a bit wide open at 16mm, it is beautiful at at almost every other aperture and focal length. I didn't like buying screw-on filters for this lens; it was an odd filter size and because of that filters were expensive. Other photographers might night find that to be much of a problem.

Here are some examples of photographs I made here in Montana using this lens to give you a feel for what I'm currently doing with this lens.

http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-1

http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-2

http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-3

http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-4

http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-5

http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-6


Nov 9, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Todd Klassy to your Buddy List  
Gunzorro
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Aug 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 6381
Review Date: Sep 26, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Amazingly versatile lens.
Cons:
Soft corners -- check for decentering.

One of my all time favorite and most-used Canon lenses.

There are reports of unit variation, and mine had slightly de-centered element, which was repaired by Canon under warranty, giving me a kick-ass lens. The center is very sharp at f/2.8, and corners are very good at f/8. So, if you aren't happy with IQ, send it to Canon -- you should expect the lens to perform well.

This is may preferred travel walk-around lens -- I can go all day without camera bag or additional lens.

Combined with the 28-300L, these two lenses can cover almost any assignment when you don't know what you are walking into, giving 16-300mm coverage.


Sep 26, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Gunzorro to your Buddy List  
dmac5dmark2
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 10, 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 10, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,590.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Sharp in the center with excellent "L" "look" and contrast
Cons:
Really bad at f2.8 and 16mm

As a photojournalist, this is a dream lens. Its my workhorse professionally and for travel. It focuses fast on a 5D Mark II and its versatility is its strongest attribute. I can shoot a street scene wide and then zoom in for a portrait seconds later.

It offers great contrast and that "look" that is so hard to explain but that most of the "L" lenses exhibit. Good color rendition but not as stunning as the 135mm or other well regarded primes. I have the 70-200mm f4 as well and this lens is also not as good for obvious design reasons (wide angle vs tele).

My only real complaint with this lens are the horribly inconsistent corners/edges from shot to shot, especially at f2.8. This is probably due to curvature of field and slight focus errors by me. However, I hear rumours of poor quality control in production and after testing a half dozen of these I tend to agree. There is a wide amount of sample variation on this lens so shop around. I would not recommend buying this lens online. Try the lens out in person and view images at 100% before purchasing.

Shooting landscapes on a tripod with a shutter release between f11 and f16 produces acceptable edges and corners. Not really that much better than a good copy of the Canon 17-40 f4, which is a much better value and lighter. I'll add that the 14mm f2.8 Mark II blows this away (not even close!) but you'll pay several hundred dollars more for it, doesn't offer the same versatility, and you can't use filters on it.

As for street shooting, I find bokeh is poor and its a bit too mushy/distorted in the corners overall at 16mm, which is to be expected for this type of design I guess. Images look a bit better stopped down to about f4.

Photos look fantastic in the 25-35 range. Edges are better on landscapes, bokeh is more pleasing, and portraits really "pop" with great 3D clarity.

Overall its a great lens for multi-purpose use. Its not perfect (and I tend to feel like it should be for the money it costs to buy one) but its definitely an important go-to lens for a working professional.

Some of my work shot with this lens:

Pacific sea nettle http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7639173430/in/set-72157630894189870

16mm view of a beautiful beach http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7710694322/in/photostream

Old ladies in front of spectacular volcanic rock formations http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7692502964/in/photostream

A landscape that shows off the len's superb clarity
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7596558426/in/photostream/

One of Korea's famous diving grandmothers http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7183482169/in/photostream/

A portrait of a boy monk straight from the camera with no post processing http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7183482169/in/photostream/

Young boy at Buddhist birthday celebration http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7299494788/in/photostream/

Pretty women on a parade float http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7299568742/in/photostream/

Enter the Dragon http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7299565844/in/photostream/


Aug 10, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add dmac5dmark2 to your Buddy List  
Ulan
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 14, 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 133
Review Date: Jun 29, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Very convenient focal range. Good IS. Sharp enough even at f/4 especially in the centre. Satisfying contact and colors. Fast AF.
Cons:
Some vignetting at f/4 24mm.

Use this zoom with my new 5D mark II and am very satisfied. My copy is quite good. It's an excellent walk-around zoom and as sharp as my 17-55 mm f/2.8 on my 7D. A great tool for travel photography.

Jun 29, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Ulan to your Buddy List  
aestiva
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 17, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 15, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Sharp, light, fast AF
Cons:
Price, bokeh

I like this lens. It's sharp en has a very fast AF.
On 2.8 a little bit soft sometimes, but most of the time usefull.

The bokeh isn't as nice as the 24-70 2.8.

This lens is a very good upgrade from a 17-40. A lot sharper.

Most of the wideangle pictures on my site are made with this lens.
www.totaalfotografie.nl


May 15, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add aestiva to your Buddy List  
ivofreriks
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 27, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 7, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

Pros: Good sharpness at 24 mm and 35 mm and in the center at 16 mm Fast AF Seals against dust and water
Cons:
Moderate sharpness at 16 and 35 mm at f/2.8 and f/4.0 Chromatic aberration a bit too high

The Canon 16-35 mm II has a fast autofocus and the finish is of a high level. Optical wise, there is something to be desired, especially in the 16 mm position. The sharpness in corners is pretty low, the vignetting is clearly visible and the distortion is high. At 24 mm the resolution becomes higher. In addition, the vignetting and distortion become much lower. In some aspects the cheaper Tokina 16-28 mm performs better than the Canon 16-35 mm II.

See complete review @:
http://www.camerastuffreview.nl/en/component/content/article/12-objectieven/55-test-canon-16-35-mm28-l-mk2


Mar 7, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ivofreriks to your Buddy List  




Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
122 348177 Jun 12, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
92% of reviewers $1,502.46
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.75
7.99
9.1
16-35II


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