 |
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
orauer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 24, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 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 24, 2010
|
|
edgarchieng
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 16, 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 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 16, 2010
|
|
dSchamp
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 106
|
|
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
|
|
PedroBenavente
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 22, 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 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 23, 2010
|
|
buddyRoland
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 194
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 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 13, 2010
|
|
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
|
|
fotogill
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 7, 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
|
|
pragmatist
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 10, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 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 24, 2010
|
|
PaulieDC
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Quality for a UWA zoom is crazy good.
|
|
Cons:
|
The edges of course, to be expected.
|
|
|
OK, short and sweet: I previously owned a 5D and 17-40mm, and for my first FF it was a delight when taking 20-second exposures on a tripod outdoors, although low-light indoor images were not so grand. Then I got the 5D2 and the 17-40m all of a sudden became the weak point. The 5D2's sensor out-resolved the 17-40mm noticably, I was fairly disappointed with the results.
I sold the 17-40mm and got the 16-35mm, and WOW... my whole world opened right up again. The 2.8 already gets you a brighter viewfinder, but the image quality in the 16-35mm is the juicy, rich satisfying tone that I get from my 24-70mm. And indoor low-light images are WONDERFUL. OK, 16mm image have cruddy edges, all Canon wide zooms tend to suffer here. But to be honest, once I correct perspective in Photoshop I have to crop a bit off each edge afterwards ANYWAY, so I end up with superb results. Just like trimming the fat off yor steak, no big deal. With 16mm, believe me, there will be image available to trim.
The 16-35mm is superb image quality, right up there with my 100mm macro, 70-200mm/2.8 and 24-70mm. Couldn't be happier.
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2010
|
|
Doug Vann
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 45
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, build quality, super wide shots
|
|
Cons:
|
have not seen any
|
|
|
Got this lens about a week ago and used it this past weekend with my 5D mkII at a wedding shoot. Wow - love the results. Especially the printed versions of the digital files. The combination of the 5D mkII and the 16-35 L just gives amazing results. So sharp and the 16 mm setting lets you get creative given the right location. 25-35 mm setting gives closer to a normal type of shot. My clients will be so pleased with the results. Only thing I would say is just keep in mind how wide this lens will go on a full frame camera. When set to 16mm you will know it is wide angle when you see people at the edges of shots. However this is the characteristic of a lens this wide. Just use the setting to get creative and keep the people toward the center of shots unless you purposely want them to have that wide angle view. Lens is expensive for sure but you get what you pay for. Feels real good on the 5D mkII..... I highly recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2009
|
|
SAUMBI
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Nov 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
"Ten feet in front if you in the picture is more like 20 feet to the edge of the frame, simple physics says it will be out of focus!"
When I made this statement in my previous review, I was referring to a flat plane, in 3D the outer edge could be much greater, (miles?) My point was at wider 2.8, 4.0, the wider apertures at 10 feet focus distance, expect softness or blur at 2' or 20'. I believe the depth of field would be shallower than that?
At any count, it is an excellent zoom lens and better than has ever been available for EOS FF body's!!
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009
|
|
SAUMBI
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Nov 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,389.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Use eye protection, this lens is that sharp! excellent color and contrast, very well corrected, no visible distortion unless you use it incorrectly!!
|
|
Cons:
|
For what it is NONE!
|
|
|
I got this lens three days ago, after selling a very good copy of the 17-40mm L, I hated to sell that lens before I tried this one because of all the negative reviews here and elsewhere. But the only way I could afford it was to sell my 17-40 to help fund this purchase. If I would have known how false most of these reviews are I would have done this months ago! the lens I sold did a very good job of capturing great images for the last 4 years, but it is not as sharp or as versatile as this lens, I think anyone who has had any experience with any ultra wide angle, and been satisfied with it, would have to say this IS A BETTER LENS.
I believe most bad reviews on this lens, now that I have used it, has to be because people do not know how to use a wide angle lens of this extreme, or they don't realize there own shortcomings as a photographer. Yes it does vignette at 16-20mm wide open, I have never seen any lens that wide that didn't on a full frame body, but it is not anything that can't be removed in PS and not as bad as most UWA's. Most shots taken wide open with it will not even be noticed, as stated in the previous review, at 2.8 in low light or to blur a background it is probably going to enhance the photo, or go unnoticed. And as far as sharpness goes, this is quite possibly a sharper lens than my 24-70 F2.8L, a very sharp lens in it's own right.
I use this type of lens mostly in landscape be it daylight or nightscape, I hardly ever shoot a wider aperture than 5.6 and usually F8.0 to F16, and assure you it performs perfect edge to edge at those settings, I have used it inside at F2.8 and am very happy with it's performance with available light. Not to mention anything above 20mm I have not noticed vignetting wide open.
I will address the filter, how anyone can say I bought a lens knowing it uses an 82mm filter and say it is a weakness is ridiculous to me. Most understand that if it were built to use a convenient screw on filter system and they want it to perform, it needs it. Yes its more money, you pay for performance. That is the same reason you pay more for this lens than the MKI copy, It does more you pay more, and maybe if they had given the first model this treatment it would have performed a little more like the MKII? But the main thing I want to agree with the previous post by saying the slim filter is not needed nore desired. I have used this with the standard Hoya Super HMC UV filter, and with no filter at all and there is no diference in the amount of vignetting or anything else that I see, only when I added the circular polarizer to the UV filter did it afect it. The polarizer by itself was great and caused no interferance in image at any focal length.
The last comment I want to make is how sharp it is at 35mm. I don't care what F stop you use it is sharp, anyway for the field of view it is supposed to have. You see I think most people who are not happy with this lens, forget that at 35mm let alone 16mm, if you are shooting any distance at all, very very little of what is in the frame is included in the DOF that is supposed to be perfectly focused! That may very well be why they say the lens is soft. Ten feet in front if you in the picture is more like 20 feet to the edge of the frame, simple physics says it will be out of focus!
The bottom line is if you want a better lens you are only going to get it by paying more than double for some exotic that will not work fully auto on a canon body anyway. If you want the best lens in a 16-35mm zoom range with an F2.8 speed for low light shooting, and as well corrected optically as anything in its class, with excellent color and great contrast, with the fastest and quietest most accurate focus, fully automatic lens for a Canon full frame body. you have one choice! PERIOD! the 16-35mm F2.8L MKII
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2009
|
|
matanuska
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 534
|
|
Review Date: Sep 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide, fast, super sharp center, good contrast and color, corners and edges well controlled.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit pricey, but not out of line with its performance.
|
|
|
I’ve been reading some of the more critical reviews here; from my perspective half are probably due to the occasional bad copy, but the other half are likely due to the owner expecting way too much from a UWA zoom. Most complaints center on lack of corner sharpness and/or light fall off/vignetting at the wide end and wide apertures. I’ve owned and extensively tested 3 high end UWA Zooms to date now; the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L II and 17-40 f4 L and the Nikon 14-24 2.8 ED (the supposed gold standard for all UWA Zooms), and can tell you that the Nikon is the only one that can reasonably (not perfectly) hold the corners at the extreme wide ends of FL and aperture. Not surprisingly however the Nikon is yet another $400-$500 more expensive than the 16-35II (even more when you factor in the adapter to shoot on a Canon). In real world shooting at f/8 to f/16 however, I can confidently state that you are not going to see any meaningful difference between the 3 lenses without resorting to some serious pixel peeping gymnastics, and even then I’ll gladly take bets that most couldn’t tell unlabeled photos apart. So confident in fact that I finally traded in my revered Nikon for an excellent copy of the 16-35II.
Yes, this lens exhibits some corner softness and light fall off at the wide end and/or at f2.8, however this starts to clear up even as low as f/4 and is gone by f/8. By comparison, if you really want an eye opener, look at the light fall off on the 17-40 wide open (f/4) – the outer two thirds of the image is dark with only a small central spot unaffected. Contrast this to the 16-35 wide open at f/2.8 where only the extreme edges and corners are dark. Same with corner softness, it does exist at f/2.8 but clears up nicely by f/8. In all cases, if you shoot this lens at the same settings as the 17-40, it outperforms its smaller cousin in all aspects (and the 17-40 an excellent lens in its own right). The 16-35 is more than just a 17-40 that goes to f/2.8, it is a significant improvement at all apertures and focal lengths.
I did some extensive testing with filters and found, contrary to claims in other reviews, no detectible difference in vignetting between a slim or regular UV filter at the 16mm wide end. Maybe there is a slight difference that some purists can see, but for the life of me I can’t tell the difference, so I use a regular thickness filter simply for the convenience of being able to use the normal dust cap. The 82mm filter size is also often cited as a point of criticism. Yes, 82mm filters are larger and more expensive, but that’s the cost for a lens with these specifications. At least this lens will accept filters, try that with the Nikon. Finally, I’ve also heard criticism that this lens starts to go soft above 24mm, but I haven’t seen any evidence of this either. Maybe those are also bad copy issues again? But mine is perfectly sharp (stunningly sharp in the center) throughout the entire range.
In short, if you absolutely must have a UWA Zoom that has razor sharp corners at f/2.8, you’re going to need to go to other extreme measures such as the Nikon 14-24 or maybe a Zeiss, but then you’ve got all of the manual focus/exposure issues to deal with. In most real world applications at f/8 to f/16, this lens easily holds it’s own against the Nikon and even outperforms the 17-40. In my experience, if I am shooting at f/2.8, I’m likely trying to blur the background, so why would I care if the corners are soft anyway. And if shooting in low light I don’t notice some light fall off corners either. In any case, it’s easily corrected in DPP.
No lens is perfect and free from little quirks that require tweaking in post. This one however does come as close to perfection as possible for a UWA zoom at its given specs and price point.
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2009
|
|
primeshot
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 16, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Edge to edge sharpness, great build, fast focus....
|
|
Cons:
|
Price...
|
|
|
I own over 5 L lenses and this is right near the top. It never lets me down. The glass is just about perfect and competes with my other L Prime Lenses. This is Canon's BEST wide angle zoom to date.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
116
|
326677
|
Apr 7, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
91% of reviewers
|
$1,504.57
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.77
|
7.98
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
