|
|
Damon Brodie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
|
|
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
|
|
Ric444
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 11, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 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 11, 2010
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
James Wei
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009
|
|
Jess Edward
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 31, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1833
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
terminator
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 212
|
|
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
|
|
SR777
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 10, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 290
|
|
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
|
|
Tudor Seulean
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 23, 2008
Location: Romania
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 7, 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 7, 2008
|
|
gerrit p
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
give good results on a full frame
|
|
Cons:
|
at 16mm the corners stay behind in sharpness.
|
|
I made a choice out of 4 lenses that were available in the shop of my local dealer.
two of them were 16-35 lenses and two of them were 17-40 lenses. After testing I simply made a choice for the best performer, in this case my sample of the 16-35 L (mark 1)
It is my daily workhorse.
Sold my 20mm ef and the 24 TSE.
It works so fine that I dont feel the need for an upgrade (mark 2).
VERY IMPORTANT: it does not like a filter, even a pro filter ads unsharpness in the corners......
|
|
|
Mar 13, 2008
|
|
JackyFong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
A follow up after repairs... Very versatile to use; close focusing to objects. Now after calibrations, I can use it on FF too
|
|
Cons:
|
Made me wasted another S$150/- for repairs
|
|
After some repairs works by Canon and I was still skeptical about this L glass. But during my test shots after repais, it got better and now this L could pave a path towards my FF.
Now I rate it a 7/10...
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2008
|
|
|
