|
|
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: 1821
|
|
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
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 189
|
|
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: 235
|
|
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
|
|
JackyFong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast aperture, Fast focusing, Good weight
|
|
Cons:
|
All pictures at all f-stop soft, with or without tripod or flash all SOFT... Since I bought second hand and I use it on cropped bodies; Canon Singapore recommend me to send to their service to re-calibrate this lens. I hope after re-calibration, the lens will be sharp as I do not want a whilte elephant. For now I rate it a 5 only.
|
|
My second L turned out to be a nightmare. Having lost my battery power on my laptop when I was testing the lens, I preview thru my 30D LCD and found it reasonably sharp. And I bought it, but turned out worst on the iMac monitor. Comments from my fellow friends were that this old lens are not suitable for cropped bodies and need a re-calibration.
I certainly hope that after the calibration it could change my views on this lens. I thought Canon L lens should be standard for all bodies, regardless film or digital, cropped bodies as well...
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008
|
|
bocaminus
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Apr 19, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 416
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2007
|
|
Dan Doucette
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Dec 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
16mm on full frame provides interesting perspective, well built, weather sealed, fast and accurate auto focus, 77mm filters are compatible with other L zooms, useful focal range, great auto focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Needs to be stopped down significantly to reduce soft corners, purple CA fringing with high contrast edges, distortion at 16mm, expensive.
|
|
Many aspects of photography are a balance of compromises, and this lens is no exception.
This lens has great strengths, like its ultra wide field of view, focal length range, fast f/2.8 aperture, solid construction, weather sealing, fast/accurate auto focus, and generally good color/contrast/sharpness.
But with these strengths one must accept and deal with its weaknesses, including soft corners, purple/blue CA along high contrast edges (in corners), and expensive price tag.
In spite of these weaknesses, I depend on this lens and use it a lot; regularly getting great results from it. For landscape work, I usually stop down to f/11 or f/16 for maximum depth of field. Even here, limited edge softness can be seen when used on a 5D full frame sensor. If edge sharpness is critical to a shot I try to be at f/5.6-11 for best results. For shots where edge sharpness is not critical I can open up to f/4 with confidence and f/2.8 in a jam.
Distortion is a bit of a problem especially at the wide end of the zoom range. I notice this most with landscape work but can always fix it with Photoshop.
As I said, this lens has many strengths to offset its weaknesses. It's exceptionally well built and weather resistant. The focal range is incredibly useful for my photography and the f/2.8 aperture is sometimes a shot saver in low-light, hand-held shooting situations. The colors and contrast, while distinctive from my other L zooms, are great, and the sharpness is generally good.
I have no desire to carry extra filters specifically for one lens, so I appreciate the fact that this lens shares a 77mm filter size with the rest of the L zoom line. This is part of the reason why I choose not to upgrade to the newer version of this lens (with its 82mm filter thread).
This lens, plus the 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS form the core trinity of my lens collection and are used for 80% of my work. I would be lost without it (them).
For me the extra expense of this lens over the 17-40 f/4 is worth it. The extra stop can sometimes get a shot that would otherwise be missed.
-Dan Doucette
www.infotography.com
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2007
|
|
|
