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 349191 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: 108°10'-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
          
Snopchenko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 18, 2010
Location: Russia
Posts: 2108
Review Date: Jan 18, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,300.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: + sharp + bright + fast and accurate AF + weather sealing
Cons:
none really

I only give this a "9" because it's slightly less sharp than the 70-200/2.8 IS which is not surprising. However I feel that 9 is still plenty. This lens has finally brought me the wider half of the Zoom Holy Duo (the other naturally being the 70-200). The only time this lens failed me was really my own fault: I dropped it and it became soft on the right side from the damage. Now, after being repaired, it's as good as ever.

Oh, and one more thing. A lot of people are complaining that lenses like this are too heavy for travelling and buy lightweight junk to replace it. For me, it's an ultimate travel lens because it's reliable and weather sealed. If you're going to a place you're pretty sure never to visit again in your life, the last thing you should be doing is trying to cheap out on photo gear, unless your true intention is to laze in the sun sipping mojito and not to take great pictures.

Regards...


Jan 18, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Snopchenko to your Buddy List  
jcsculpture
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 13, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Dec 13, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,350.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Super fast AF, controlled distortion for an ultra-wide.
Cons:
Price.. only decently sharp at 2.8, not great at 35mm

I have put together a lens comparison test of the Canon 16 – 35 L II and the Tamron 17 – 35 2.8 – 4.0. I was in the market for quite a while looking for a lens which would satisfy this zoom range. I initially bought the Canon 16-35 2.8 L II, but was disappointed with the results. Not that it was bad, just for the price, it was just that it wasn't great. I was expecting more. So on a whim (had 30 days to return) I decided to try out the Tamron.

Summary;

The Tamron is very close and may even surpass the Canon in terms of sharpness when shot wide open – especially at 35mm in which case, the Tamron definitely surpasses the Canon. Canon beats the Tamron in regards to distortion, but ever so slightly. AF is better with the Canon - slightly faster, not significantly. Vignetting about the same. Canon has better saturation and contrast.

I had a hard time actually accepting my own test. I really wanted to love the Canon. This was one of the first times I had done a lens comparison with a Canon L lens and a third party lens. The price difference between the two was so dramatic, that I assumed the image quality would be as well. To be honest, I was shocked. Since the test revealed how close they performed, I returned the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 L II and kept the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0. IMO, the Canon is not worth spending and extra $1,000.

For full review and sample pictures showing sharpness, distortion, vignetting, etc.. click on following link;
http://johncarnessali.com/lens-tests/2995


Dec 13, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jcsculpture to your Buddy List  
filip_makowski
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 25, 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 25, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Extremely sharp, great contrast, solid build
Cons:

Fantastic wide angle lens that really shines on a full frame body such as the Canon 5D Mark II.

I originally had the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM which produced good images with high contrast and good colour reproduction, but sharpness was poor. In comparison, the 16-35mm II is ultra-sharp in the middle and more than acceptable in the corners (even when pixel peeping), with fantastic contrast and colours. The AF is fast and the build is solid.

Some sample photos on different bodies:

5D II: http://www.flickr.com/photos/filipmakowski/6157757391/in/photostream
5D II: http://www.flickr.com/photos/filipmakowski/6157760781/in/photostream
5D II: http://www.flickr.com/photos/filipmakowski/6157758417/in/photostream
7D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/filipmakowski/6157759497/in/photostream
7D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/filipmakowski/6158293534/in/photostream
20D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/filipmakowski/6157752733/in/photostream





Nov 25, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add filip_makowski to your Buddy List  
Daniel Yee
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 3, 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 23, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,600.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: very sharp, good range, takes filters
Cons:
odd filter size

I was never happy with my 17-40L. The corners are mushy and they are never on good levels even with small aperture.

The 16-35 II however is a totally different beast! The corners are already sharp at f/2.8! Price is a bit steep though... twice of 17-40L.


Nov 23, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Daniel Yee to your Buddy List  
alexander65
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 3, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 3 

 
Pros: Middle was sharp, lightweight compared to 2,8
Cons:
Corners never sharp, big minus in architecture; Competitors do it better for even less money

Bought this lens 2 years ago and never was really happy.
The middle, as expected, is sharp, BUT on a fullframe body like the 5dMkII you quickly see the not so impressive corners and edges: they are soft, absolutely not sharp, even going at f8, where every lens should shine.
I accepted it or used it only on the 1D, being a crop and so cutting of the worst.
After trying my first alternative, non original gear in my curiosity I found the Tokina 16-28/2,8 and:
it beats the Canon easily.
Iīm very sorry for Canon and I`m no friend of writing something bad, but the 16-35/2,8II was a lens I avoided, because of getting a headache looking at the pictures.
(Sure, 28mm on the long end is less then the Canon, but before reaching this the IQ is far superior).
I sold it.
End of the story.
P.S.: I`m quite happy with all my other Canon- Lenses!


Aug 3, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add alexander65 to your Buddy List  
kevindar
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2297
Review Date: Apr 30, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,400.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Good color and contrast. excellent range. good stopped down, improved vignetting and corner sharpness compared to 1. takes filters. good star burst stopped down
Cons:
on the side end, corners at f11 are still not completely sharp. 82mm filter size.

I have shot many ultra wides on my 5D Mark II, often comparing them side by side. These include 16-35 I, 16-35 II, 17-40, Nikon 14-25, Samyang 14, and canon tse 24.
Compared to 17-40, it is slightly better micro contrast, a little less distortion on the wide end, and better corners on the wide end. compared the the nikon, which I also use with an adapter, the corners, exp on wide end are softer. they are close at f11, although nikon still has an advantage. also nikon has better microcontrast. On the down side, nikon is a lot more flare prone, which can really decrease contrast. also the nikon does not take filters. This lens sweet spot is 19-22, although its good the rest of the range also, and stopped down, give very good full frame performance, though always not spectacular. Its also my favorite indoors video lens, and a wonderful PJ lens. Over all, its a lot like the 5d2, very versatile, very good in many areas, but not spectacular.


Apr 30, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add kevindar to your Buddy List  
exphose
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 60
Review Date: Feb 21, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,450.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very sharp, fast, minimal distortion, no vignetting at least on 1.3x crop, don't miss any wide primes at all.
Cons:
82mm filters are expensive and you likely don't already have one, hood is pretty worthless and bulky.

Upgraded from a 17-40 4L, this is a bit better in every way... sharper, faster, weather sealing, nice MFD.

The go to lens for wide angle use, though not that great as a single walkaround lens. that's more of the 24-70 type lens anyways.

The 82mm filters are very expensive and it's annoying to not be able to share filters/caps with the more common 77mm and 72mm lenses.

Very sharp even at F2.8, don't feel that a 24mm 2.8 L is any sharper, in fact I thought mine wasn't as sharp so I sold it.

Some samples here:

http://russell.exphose.com/canon1635mk2


Feb 21, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add exphose to your Buddy List  
AnderlSp
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 12, 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jan 25, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: excellent image quality, robust, it's L
Cons:
high price

So I think now after a year I can draw a conclusion. The lens did not disappoint me. The lens is like to expect really robust and comfortable in the hand. It's really a pleasure to work with it. I don't miss IS, since it's not really necessary at this focal length.

The Canon EF 16-35 L II 2.8 provides excellent wide-angle shots, though of course there are distortions at the edges. They can easily be removed using Lightroom. It delivers consistently sharp images even down to the edges, my EOS 5D Mk II tends to light overexposure with this lens. A look at the histogram is therefore recommended after the shot.

You can find sample pictures on my web site:

http://www.reise-bilderbuch.de

goto Photography -> Lenses -> Canon EF 16-35 mm L II

Andreas


Jan 25, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add AnderlSp to your Buddy List  
orauer
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 23, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Review Date: Oct 23, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: They've all been mentioned below: build, f/2.8, IQ, etc
Cons:
There aren't any as long as you manage to get a decent copy!

First let me say that I had to try 2 copies of this lens before I got one that was spot on (I had the same problem with my 24-70L way back when). The first one was almost unusable.

If you manage to get a decent copy of this lens there aren't any negative points. Things like filter size and weight aren't cons, they're inconveniences, if anything. Come on, people! The problems/ cons for me personally lie in Canon's QC .... as far as I'm concerned, there's lots and lots of room for improvement here!

UWA lenses - no matter how sophisticated - will always have a certain amount of light fall-off or soft edges on a FF body, that's something you'll just have to live with, but if you get a decent copy of this lens you'll know you've got a decent copy!

F/2.8, 16mm on FF, 20.8mm-45.5mm on a 1D2, top-notch IQ and build are the reasons why I bought this lens.

I'm not gonna repeat what lots of people have already said; this is a suprior piece of optics, which costs money. If you need a UWA lens and you've got the cash then get it, and don't even consider going for 2nd best (ie 17-40L).


Oct 23, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add orauer to your Buddy List  
edgarchieng
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 15, 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 15, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: - The best zoom wide-angle lens in the Canon line up - Sharp in the middle - F2.8 is the icing on the cake - It's not as heavy as I had expected - Build like a tank - Weather proof
Cons:
- Filter thread size - A little bit on the expensive side - A little distorted on the edges

I have used this for both photography and for video and it is awesome for videos. The large aperture wide angle view on a video is really something to praise for, because it is especially good during low light video filming.

Price is on the dear side but it is worth every single cent of it. Trust me, this is a tough lens and it can withstand most conditions you throw at it.

My only complain is the larger than usual filter thread size of 82mm. Other than that, this is highly recommended.


Aug 15, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add edgarchieng to your Buddy List  
dSchamp
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 107
Review Date: Jun 27, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,550.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Excellent wide-angle lens; great contrast and color; super sharp; "L" quality all the way.
Cons:
Hood is a pain; bit pricey; 82mm front element (everything else in my bag is 77mm)

Replaced a very reliable 17-40. Absolutely no regrets, even though the price is almost 3Xs the 17-40. F 2.8 speed, build quality, contrast, all make this a super wide angle lens. Its has replaced my 24-70 as the lens always on the body. After 18 mos of use I simply love this lens and highly recommend.

Jun 27, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add dSchamp to your Buddy List  
PedroBenavente
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 22, 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 22, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Fantastic colour, low-light performance, sharp, build quality, very good wide-angle even on 1.3x
Cons:
haven't found yet

I'm using it mainly on social events and photojournalism for a magazine.

Love the colour that I can take from it.

I don't find it heavy. If you want build quality it must have some weight.

I'm very happy with it, both with my 40D or Mark IV - with this last one it really rocks eaven at ISO 12800.

It could be cheaper, but every L lens its always a bit expensive than one would desire.


May 22, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add PedroBenavente to your Buddy List  
buddyRoland
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Oct 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 195
Review Date: Apr 12, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,420.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Shooting wide on my 5D2, it's clear and phenomenal. Superb low-light performance.
Cons:
Costly for the performance.

Wish it was cheaper. This lens performed admirably out of the box. I shot a video with my 5D2/Manfrotto tripod and it looked professional.

This lens handles low-light better than my 17-40 but in regular lighting the only advantage over the 17-40 is width. I did not have make any microadjustments to this lens.

Sharp all the way around.


Apr 12, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add buddyRoland to your Buddy List  
jrizz
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 28, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 55
Review Date: Apr 2, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,000.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: sharp, build quality, super wide shots, excellent for HD Video
Cons:
None

I was lucky enough to pick this up used for a $1,000. It was bought this past January and the seller only used it a few times. I have taken a few hundred shots and all my images are very sharp. I have the 5D-2 and used it for video as well. A very good lens for shooting video. I'm going to Italy this fall and this will be the lens I need for Rome and the countryside. I have been using the 24-105mm for landscape and was missing that extra wide I needed in the photos. Excellent low light shooting as well. If you have the money go for it. You won't regret it.

Apr 2, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jrizz to your Buddy List  
fotogill
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 6, 2010
Location: Israel
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 7, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp, fast, very wide on FF, IQ, well build
Cons:
On very wide angle the edges are not so sharp as expected for a extra wide len like this and his price

Three days ago I got this len for the main purpose-landscape photography and I very impressed by the quality of the images. Everything was there-sharpness, IQ, and very wide angle on FF (5d2) except the fact that I could'nt give 10 because on his large and wide zoom of this len, we can perceive some softness on edge to edge when cropping 100% the image with a aperture close enough to be sharp like f11 or f13.
I think each len has his plus and his minus but in the total this len do his job, satifying what I expected from the start- a zoom len for multi purpose almost and not a prime third part like a leica, a zeiss or whatever the prime, his prize will raise three times more. The bad reviews on this len came out because of the bad copies or either because of the idea we had before and now when the moment is coming to test it, it does not even closed to our expectations.
I think of the real purpose of this len it's a journalist photography. It's the best fit and the question is what I can do with this one if I shot landscape or portraits or anything for my creation.


Mar 7, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add fotogill to your Buddy List  
pragmatist
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 10, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Review Date: Jan 23, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharpness, IQ, Everything really
Cons:
Price and that stupid lens hood

Got this for my Landscaping after realising the 24-70 is just not wide enough. This lens is superb at all apertures but really excels above F8. This is not just a landscapers lens though, It is fantastic for street photography, Weddings and portraits, Just don't get too close while zoomed all the way out or the model will probably slap you.
All in all a quality lens that is definately a keeper.


Jan 23, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add pragmatist 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 349191 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