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 334812 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
       †††
incdigital
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 226
Review Date: Mar 30, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent center sharpness @ all stops, constant 2.8, outstanding weather sealed L build, produces images w/ better contrast than 17-40, close focusing
Cons:
Cost & border sharpness only good when stopped down



Mar 30, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add incdigital to your Buddy List  
Henning
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 9, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
Review Date: Mar 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

Pros: Well built, fast, nice range.
Cons:
Mediocre optical quality. Doesn't get acceptably sharp until f/11 in the corners; low contrast even at smaller apertures.

I bought this lens when it came out for film, and now use it mostly on FF bodies, but have also used it on 1.6x bodies.

This lens is better than the 17-35 that came before, but again shows that Canon can't/won't buckle down and produce a truly good wideangle. Some fixed focal lenses from the FD days were decent and competitive, but the offerings in the EF line have been poor.

For higher performance in this range I use 15/3.5 and 20/2.8 Nikkors, even though the former has flare issues and is a 30 year old design. My Sigma 12-24 has better performance at f/5.6 than this lens, even though it has a much wider FOV. On 1.6x bodies the lens is better, as the central zone is fairly sharp even at larger apertures, but contrast is still fairly low.

My reference standards for performance are various current Leica-M lenses, 30mm Xpan, and a range of high performance large format W.A. lenses, as well as 10-20 year old Nikkors.

I have tried 3 samples of this lens, and they all performed similarly, with only slight variation.

I would recommend this les because it is a convenient, fast lens that can produce reasonable quality if stopped down, and the options in the Canon range are otherwise limited.


Mar 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Henning to your Buddy List  
Krien
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 24, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 479
Review Date: Mar 11, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,179.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Best build Canon Zoom! weather sealing. Optical quality is outstanding, @24mm better then prime, usefull zoom-range (on1.6x), I like the color and contrast, very sharp. It really competes constantly with my 24-70 al the time (on 1.6X), on FF great U-WA. No distortions in 24-35 area.
Cons:
the hood is a not allways usefull (can be solved by using 24L hood) on 1.6.x, fair amount of barrel ditortion at wide end. No circular diafragm

This lens is really ecceptional. I don't understand why it is lower rated then it's little brother. When you stop this one down to f4 it is one of a kind.

It is my favorite zoomlens. On a ff it's o good ultra WA but with more restrictions mainly barrel distortion and corner sharpness.

I hesitated a very long time before buying this one. I now own it for 1,5 years and enjoy it EVERY DAY!


Mar 11, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Krien to your Buddy List  
infinityG35
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 213
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,400.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: You just have to love this lens if you get a nice piece. It's capable of producing sharp and crisp color. It's a great walk around lens and great for indoor parties and group pictures.
Cons:
You have to pay for the quality



Feb 6, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add infinityG35 to your Buddy List  
lord_malone
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 496
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,300.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Build, fast
Cons:
Price

After contemplating the EF-S 10-22 and owning the 17-40L, I'm glad I ignored all the negative reviews and purchased this lens. I needed a faster WA zoom than the equally superb 17-40 offered, and really wasn't interested in any of the third party offerings. Yes, it's a steep price to pay, but then again, I'll never need another wide-angle zoom esp. when it comes to time to move to a FF body. I'm still taking some sample shots, but so far so good.

Feb 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add lord_malone to your Buddy List  
mfoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2307
Review Date: Jan 29, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Just a solid performer. The lens I should have bought a long time ago
Cons:
not yet

It took me a while to get to the 16-35 2.8L (scared off by the price). For more than a couple of years I was shooting with a Sigma 15-30 and I was actually quite happy with this lens. When my wife got into some interior photography we needed a second wide zoom. I jumped for a used 17-40 4L, which I was quite happy with except for a couple of issues. I think the main one was focusing. On the 20D the 16-35 2.8L just seems to get it right more often than the 17-40L. I guess this may have something to do with the cross sensor focusing kicking in with lenses f/2.8 and faster on the 20D. The other obvious advantage is the extra 1mm, which makes a huge difference on 1.6x crop camera.

I love the fact that the 2.8L is sharp wide open. I like it for portraits and it has IMO quite nice bokeh. I find it worth the step up and canít wait to use on FF or 1.3x body.

A few shots can be seen here:

http://www.putnamstation.com/images/PhotosGIF/1205/122905-5-IMG_1077.jpg
http://www.putnamstation.com/images/PhotosGIF/1105/111205-3-IMG_8343.jpg
http://www.putnamstation.com/images/PhotosGIF/1105/112605-1-IMG_9808.jpg
http://mfoto.smugmug.com/photos/53888222-L.jpg
http://mfoto.smugmug.com/photos/53888217-L.jpg
http://mfoto.smugmug.com/photos/45513353-L.jpg


Jan 29, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add mfoto to your Buddy List  
imeod
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 35
Review Date: Jan 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,369.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: build, weatherproof, 2.8 and wide!
Cons:
The lens hood is absolutely ridiculous! I have never seen a larger more impractical lens hood.

I love shooting with this lens. My only problem now is that I have to switch back and forth between this lens and my 24-70mm. I just wish that it had a little more reach so that I could leave it on as my everyday lens. Oh yeah, did I mention the ridiculous hood?

Jan 24, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add imeod to your Buddy List  
Michael-M
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Apr 21, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2698
Review Date: Jan 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,400.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: very well built, fast f/2.8, sharp optics for a zoom. useable from f/2.8 on up.
Cons:
none

i have to give this lens a "10", but i have one niggle about it, but after seeing other samples from 2 other copies, i realize such is life with a wide angle.....oh the niggle, it's when using this lens at 16mm at f/2.8..........the edges are soft, but this is gone by f/3.2..........here is a sample with no PP........
16mm, f/2.8
http://www.pbase.com/image/54165258/original

the fullsize is on that site too.

now what i really love about this lens is that i do a lot of indoor shooting and use a 20D which (and i now believe to be true) utilizes the precision AF with f/2.8 lenses. i usually use flash and this lens hits the target each and everytime, something i could not count on with the 17-40.
i have seen reviews saying this zoom is soft, maybe so because of calibration problems, but this copy is sharp as a prime throughout it's entire range.
maybe Canon QC has finally listened to us and tightened up the building of this zoom.
as far as the price is concerned, it puts a smile on my face when i see the results, and when you realize how little post processing needs to be done you realize how this lens literally pays for itself.


Jan 1, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Michael-M to your Buddy List  
setse8
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Dec 23, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very sharp and has amazing color and contrast! Color and contrast beats all the others lenses that I have including 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 135 2.0L and 200 2.8L. Even in low light, the colors just jump out at you!
Cons:
None. Well, maybe .... price.



Dec 23, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add setse8 to your Buddy List  
jmraso
Online
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 25, 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 2232
Review Date: Dec 23, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Very sharp even at 16 2.8 as ussual in all my L glass. Beatutifull color redition. smoth zooming. Not a complain.
Cons:
None.

Quite happy with the prints that I sell around and specially
these church shots when I do wedding.

I do recommend it.

Jaime
www.jmraso.com


Dec 23, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jmraso to your Buddy List  
stelin
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
Review Date: Dec 22, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharpness and speed
Cons:
1st copy was out of alignment

My first copy was decidedly out of alignment, replaced under warranty, and the new one is simply wonderful -- I probably use it more than any other lens now. Sharp with good contrast and clarity. Very good wide open too, and when stopped down to f16 on a tripod, the results are almost 3d like in their clarity. The fact that it doesn't vignette with the same polariser that I use on my 24-70 is a very useful bonus. The speed is also very handy when tripod or flash isn't an option.

Dec 22, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add stelin to your Buddy List  
Exit
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 16, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 184
Review Date: Dec 19, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Build, focus speed, looks!!, f/2.8 is really huge over f/4, colour and contrast are amazing and my copy is tack sharp
Cons:
You get what you pay for

I got this lens yesterday and I was waiting, and hoping that what I had read on some forums about newer versions of this lens being much better were true. Well I'm here to report this lens is tack sharp corner to corner (on my 20D) and the colour and contrast and just stunning. If you need a wide angle zoom with f/2.8 skip on the cheap lenses and get this one. If you buy the others first you will want to upgrade and will end up loosing money.

The date code on my lens is UT0912


Dec 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Exit to your Buddy List  
Liquidpics
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Jun 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1107
Review Date: Dec 11, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,400.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: I was wary purchasing this lens because of all the mixed reviews. But, I needed more then the 17-40mm (f/4) had to offer for low light situations. So, I decided to go for it! My copy- date code-UTO8** is very sharp wide open all the way through to the smallest aperature. The extra stop has definetly been worth the extra money. A stunningly sharp wide with fast and quite AF.
Cons:
price could always be lower but you do get what you pay for

The best wide zoom Canon has to offer!

Dec 11, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Liquidpics to your Buddy List  
pski
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Dec 9, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: speed, feel and size
Cons:

I love to use this lens in low light or arena, sports use. Great look for some perspective shots or things.

Dec 9, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add pski to your Buddy List  
Canon Man
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Oct 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 782
Review Date: Dec 8, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,300.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: The lens is very versatile, capturing high amounts of detail and very shape, has great color and pretty fast. The AF is super quite
Cons:
Some fall off beyone a 1.6 crop

After hearing that the QC of this lens was beefed up as of Aug 05 I decided to get my first zoom, being a purest using only primes.
The lens is very versatile, capturing high amounts of detail and very shape, has great color and pretty fast.
The AF is super quite and I belive I did get a gem.


Dec 8, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Canon Man to your Buddy List  
sivrajbm
Online
Image Upload: On



Registered: Mar 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3126
Review Date: Nov 29, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,499.00 | Rating: 3 

Pros: fast usm that's about it.
Cons:
not the sharpest lense for the money. not sharp @ 2.8 so exactly why buy this lense. Ok @4.0 again what the he**.

I took this one back.
I'll just keep my little Tamron 17-35.
My Tamron was slightly sharper @ 2.8, better @ 4.0 and equal every where else. The Canon is faster focusing and constant with a warm tone. I thought if it was sharper than my Tamron I'd keep it. Not a chance. The Tamron is a much better buy for the money.


Nov 29, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add sivrajbm to your Buddy List  

†††



Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
140 334812 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