 |
|
|
danks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 6, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 289
|
|
Review Date: Jul 28, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Convenient!!
|
|
Cons:
|
Well . . . read on.
|
|
|
First off, I have never been a fan of zooms and feel they offer a trade off . . . convenience over quality.
This one is no exception to what my experience has taught me over the years.
I do not have any ultra wide primes to test it against but I did test it against the EF35mm f1.4L. I'd say the 1.4 was about as sharp AT f1.4 as this zoom was at f2.8! Stop the prime to f 2.8 and it was clearly, to my eye, sharper than the zoom, and significantly so . . . ON A BODY with a 1.6 CROP!! I can not say what the corners on a full frame would look like.
Stop 'em down to f 8 and they look much the same of course.
Still, a marvelously convenient lens. I will keep, and use it despite the obvious compromise it represents. It is likely as good as wide angle zooms are likely to be for quite some time. When you look at a cross section through these lenses, any of the ultra wides, it is a wonder they work as well as they do. The curvature of many of the elements is extreme! Designing these lenses must be tough!
|
|
 Jul 28, 2003
|
|
traveler
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3234
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,325.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Surprisingly sharp lens for it's focal range, Color and contrast befitting a L lens, instant focus lock in all but horrible light, nice tight precision build.
|
|
Cons:
|
plenty of barrel distortion at 16mm
|
|
|
With all the whining I've seen on various forums about this lens, all I can say it it remains the KING of the wide angle zooms in the performance department. It may not be perfect (with more barrel distortion than I like) at 16mm, but it is still a remarkable performer with it's degree of flexibility. Others have also complained about it's "wide open" performance, when in fact the typical use of such a lens will be for outdoor/landscape work, and should be used between F4-F16 at least anyway. When properly used it is one darn sharp lens across from one side to the other. Some have complained of inconsistencies in QC of this lens, and this may well be. While I always recommend one buy from a vendor that allows easy return for replacement, I still feel when one receives a working copy, it will be the best in it's class to be sure.
|
|
|
May 28, 2003
|
|
braindeadmac
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Apr 29, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1913
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,299.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice focal length range, better image quality than Canon 17-35 it replaces. Nice weight and handling.
|
|
Cons:
|
Still a bit soft in the corners, wide open and as high as f 5.6. Also flares a bit easily
|
|
|
This is a nice lens; I switched to this lens when switching from Nikon. Although reasonably sharp, it is no match for the Nikkor 17-35 AFS in terms of performance wide open. There is no vignetting and light fall off at 16mm is very well controlled. I did get to compare it to a 17-35 Canon and found it a marked improvement over that lens. The lens is a bit prone to flare, but that's probably consistent with it's short focal length.
|
|
|
May 1, 2003
|
|
oldsouth
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 174
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality construction.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as I was expecting.
|
|
|
Lens had excellent FOV. Was my first wide angle. But I was disappointed in the sharpness, especially with a flash in program mode. Was sharp at aperture 2.8, and 8-9 range but fuzzy at 4-6.
Sold it and bought the 24-70 --- much better lens.
|
|
|
Apr 3, 2003
|
|
marksct
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 245
|
|
Review Date: Apr 2, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast AF, excellent range.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This is a Great lens. It is so great I bought a second 10D just for it. Now I carry 2 cams in the bag one specifically for this lens.
Excellent for PJ, Street, Parties, Editorial.
Love it.
|
|
|
Apr 2, 2003
|
|
Jack Flesher
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3489
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Great range.
|
|
Cons:
|
>read update<
|
|
This lens is sharper in the center than the 17-35 it replaced, but softer in the corners -- at least with my copies of each. So, I would recommend this lens IF you shoot a camera with a 1.6x crop factor, but won't recommend it if you shoot 1.3x or full-frame. This lens also shows more of its other bad characteristics with the fuller frame cameras -- namely some slight CA and barrel distortion.
Update: I recently purchased a second one of these simply for the convenience. This one is significantly superior to my first one. There is obviously sample-to-sample variation with these lenses and that probably explains the variety of responses seen in the several reviews of it here. This copy is quite sharp in the center and remains very good out at the edges -- No, it is not equal to the 35/1.4 L at f2.8, but IMO it is essentially equal to the non-L lenses it replaces and perhaps even sharper in the center than some. I have not compared it directly to the 17-40 -- at least yet  I would now rate it a 3.5-4.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2003
|
|
Peter Gregg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 487
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent at everything
|
|
Cons:
|
none - well, the price, but you get what you pay for.
|
|
|
This lens excells in every aspect. It is the best lens I own so far and I highly recommend it. Coming from MF cameras, it is the only lens that reminds me of my lenses from my pro MF SLR's, a real pro lens.
Peter Gregg
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2003
|
|
stan_g
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 232
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast zoom (2.8), VERY fast AF, sharper than 17-35L
|
|
Cons:
|
kinda heavy (21oz)
|
|
|
Noticeably sharper than my all-time favorite D30 lens, the 17-35L, whose lack of sharpness shows up on D60/10D.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2003
|
|
deevee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 361
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,175.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
well built, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy
|
|
|
i dont have too much experience with this zoom range asides from the canon 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 and the tokina afx 20-35mm f2.8...needless to say this lens produces better pics than the other 2 but i have the feeling it's not the sharpest in the canon arsenal...i know the 50mm f1.4, the 100mm macro and the 70-200mm f4 are sharper than this zoom...but in this range one don't have 2 many choices except perhaps going w primes only...saying so, it is my primary lens on my d60/and now eos 10d for this range is so useful for both landscapes as well as all around...the build is just solid, i dropped the lens from my backpack i carried to the concrete below and it sustained a minor scratch to the meatl on the base near the mount but still performs flawlessly...it's heavy as it should and is quite hefty for hiking but is built like a tank!...the filter is huge as expected but overall this is a must have lens for digital dlsr, expecially those w the 1.6 x ...if u shoot wide w 10d or d60 then this is a must have lens...at a cost of course ...;-))
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2003
|
|
sdai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 3387
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Best ultra wide Canon makes
|
|
Cons:
|
CA and edge softness
|
|
|
You'll love it forever if you do wide angle, till you use the 17-35 AF-S, which is why I'm still shooting with Nikon
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2003
|
|
Ben Horne
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 11259
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,280.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Fast, solid, weather sealing
|
|
Cons:
|
distortion
|
|
|
Unlike the previous 17-35mm f/2.8 L, the new 16-35mm f/2.8 L is rather sharp and Chromatic Abberation is not an issue. CA will still show up from time to time, but you really have to hunt for it. With the 17-35mm, CA was a very big problem. This is the lens in my lineup that continues to impress me the more I use it. For a wide angle zoom, it is VERY sharp. Unlike the 17-35mm, the 16-35mm is usable wide open.
I highly recommend this lens --- the focal length is great on the 1D, and I've even used it on a film body with very sharp results corner to corner.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2003
|
|
Andy Biggs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1620
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp!!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost
|
|
|
If I could have only one lens, this would be it. Period. Wonderfully built, USM really shines, and the sharpness in my images really pay off. This is not an inexpensive lens, but well worth saving up for.
I didn't own the 17-35mm before this one, so I cannot compare the two.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2003
|
|
John MacLean
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 390
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,516.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
some CA
|
|
|
I've encountered less CA with this lens than I did with my older 17-35, but it's still there if you look for it.
there is some barrel distortion @ 16mm too.
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
141
|
327813
|
Apr 17, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
91% of reviewers
|
$1,269.67
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.65
|
7.83
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
