 |
|
|
cdryall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 12, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great sharpness from pretty much wide open through to mid apetures, build, great colour - just a great option on a full frame
|
|
Cons:
|
Only really cost - but gives primes a run for the money in range...
|
|
|
Great lens - have only had for a short time but improvement over 17-40 on full frame clear to see - really a great option - highly recommended....
|
|
 Sep 12, 2009
|
|
Rey_G
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 31, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 31, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, wide (on FF), Excellent IQ, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filter size
|
|
|
A bit pricey but you get what you pay for. As a former owner of a 17-40, I recently upgraded to the 16-35 when I upgraded from a crop body to the full-frame 5D mark II. The extra stop alone is worth the extra added cost. Nice low light performance, using this lens more indoors than I would have the 17-40. Nice edge to edge sharpness. A definite worthwhile upgrade and worth the price of admission.
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2009
|
|
spasmoid
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, responsive autofocus, quiet, great build quality, tough
|
|
Cons:
|
you get what you pay for
|
|
|
This is my first professional grade lens (not including the 50mm F/1.8). I had it since the MkII first came out. I used this site to help make my decision. I figured that while I still had an APS-C at the time, I would upgrade to a full-frame camera to take advantage of it. In the mean time, it has endlessly produced superb results for me in my landscape and modeling photography. Being able to use it in low light has proved invaluable as well - maintaining low ISOs while shooting clothing catalogues in overcast conditions in the forest.
I never realised just how much a pleasure this lens was to use until I played around with other non-L lenses.
I have a wedding photographer friend who has the 17-40 for his 5D and he always borrows my 16-35 when we shoot together.
If you are having trouble deciding whether or not to spend the extra money to get this lens, I would advise you to go ahead if you can afford it. It has given me years of reliable service despite the abuse I have thrown at it (landscape photography with lots of ocean spray and bad weather).
I didin't realise how important it was to have a tough/durable lens when I first started. I am constantly amazed at what this lens puts up with, and I still keep dishing up the punishment. Remember to always keep a filter snugly mounted on it, and it will serve you for a long time with beautiful, crisp, vibrant, bright photos.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2009
|
|
Drew_Persson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1214
|
|
Review Date: Mar 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Superman-solid build, nice optics, weathersealing is a plus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price.
|
|
|
After some disappointment with the much less expensive Tamron 17-35mm zoom (soft & distorted edges, not as contrasty as I'd like, some CA), I bit the bullet and stepped up to Canon's latest 16-35 offering.
Is it perfect? No, but a heck of a lot better than the Tamron, and though certainly less bang-for-the-buck. I feel the image quality is worth the almost $1,000 premium, and looking back at the shots captured with the Tammy I wish I would have spent the extra money sooner.
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2009
|
|
joezasada
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3040
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Razor sharp. Superb build quality. Good range. Excellent image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive.
|
|
|
First off, if you are using a FF (5D, 1Ds) or APS-H (1D) body this is the wide zoom of choice. If you are using an APS-C (1.6x crop) body this one isn't really going to be wide enough and you would be better off with the EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5.
That said, for FF or APS-H it's an excellent choice. You'de be hard pressed finding a better canon-mount zoom in that range...
The primes (14L, 24L, 35L) are each better at the focal length... but the zoom is *almost* as good.
I'de say this one is a better performer than either the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L or the EF 24-105mm F/4L IS - albeit for a different intended range.
You won't be disappointed with a good copy of this lens.
It's one of my most used, 'go-to' lenses.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009
|
|
x0SiN0x
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 81
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, compliments 5D perfectly for landscapes, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
little pricey, but in the end well worth it.
|
|
|
first wide angle lens, very happy with it. Compliments my new 5d perfectly.
|
|
|
Mar 2, 2009
|
|
mzemljic
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp Wide Angle lens, fast lens-f/2.8, very useable for weddings, interiors, architecture, fun for close ups...
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
This is so far my best wide angle lens... I have owned 17-40 f4 L but 16-35 f2,8 L II is another space. by the way, It so much better even from original 16-35.
It's sharp wide open and it very well built. Zoom ring is very smooth. Personally I could Zoom the ring in/out the whole day 
UV filter 82 is a "MUST" because of full sealed feature!
I strongly RECOMMEND it, specially in a Kit with 135 f2 L or 70-200 f2,8 L IS
Personal view:
Since I already have 15 fish & 24-70f/2,8 L from "wide crew" I didn't realize how much I missed 16-35 all these time.
So now I am very pleased I bought it because It closed the hole space in "wide angle crew"
The 16-35 II already paid it self after one job so I anxiously wait new 24 f/1,4 II to join "low light crew" consisting of 50f/1,4 & 85 f1,2 L II
CS3 scaled example:
http://flickr.com/photos/mattassano/3268101470/
|
|
|
Mar 2, 2009
|
|
supersoyary
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 13, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Feb 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build, solid feel, sharp and fast, quiet focusing, fairly light
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
On my 40D, it's great, especially in low light situations. I'm a student photojournalist and the wide angle is amazing for covering tight spots or crowds. The contrast and color capture quality fits its L designation. I would highly recommend this in your general lens kits. This and the 70-200 2.8 IS gives me the best and most useful focal range as a photojournalist.
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2009
|
|
Chrono1081
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 20, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1932
|
|
Review Date: Feb 1, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp! Very very sharp! No vignette.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
After owning the 16-35 Mark I I can easily say this is leaps and bounds better. Not sure how others are getting vignette but on the 5D and 5d Mark II and 1Ds Mark III there is no vignette, the pics are sharp edge to edge, Im really really satisfied. I was really hesitent after reading others reviews to order this but Im glad I did.
|
|
|
Feb 1, 2009
|
|
jdben622
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 19, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 4014
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,175.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Range, sharpness, build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting.
|
|
|
I was eager to see how my new 16-35MKII compared against the Zuiko 7-14 (14-28mm effective). In terms of vignetting the Zuiko is superb, none at any focal length or aperture. The Canon fell off at 16mm at 2.8, 4.0, and 8.0. Zuiko won hands down.
The perspective of the Zuiko lens is more interesting. At 8mm (16mm effective), it was notably wider than the 16mm Canon...go figure. At 7mm, it was considerably wider, as would be expected. I would be interested to see how it compared with the new 14mm from Canon. So from a creative standpoint, the Zuiko definitely gets the nod. Distortion from the two was both very good.
Sharpness...OMG!! The Canon absolutely massacred the Zuiko. The Canon 100% crop at f2.8 was vastly superior to the Zuiko native at f4.0. It was literally like comparing an L-prime to kit zoom. I was very surprised. I was never floored by the sharpness of the Zuiko, but I am amazed at the sharpness of the Canon.
I was actually considering keeping an Olympus body to use with the 7-14mm because I really like that lens. However, I was not excited at all about having two systems. I used a 16-35MKI some time back and didn't care for it. Outside of the extra width, most of the deficiencies of the Canon can be corrected in Photoshop. However, the detail and sharpness of the Canon lens is vastly superior. Granted, the Zuiko was mounted on a 10MP E-3 and the Canon on a 1DsMKII, but that's the best Olympus has right now. Also, I do get very sharp shots with the E-3 and the 35-135/2 zoom.
I don't have a 17-40/4 to compare with the 16-35/2.8, but the sharpness of the 16-35mm at 16mm and 2.8, 4.0, and 8.0 puts it in the absolute winner category for me.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2009
|
|
filipmakowski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp even to edges, solid build
|
|
Cons:
|
Tad expensive
|
|
This lens was an upgrade from the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. Although the 10-22mm is great value for money with good image quality, this L lens beats it hands down. Edges are much sharper, very good (either I have a good model or else any soft edges don't show up on a 20D). Fast autofocus and solid build, I rate this better than my 24-70mm f/2.8L.
For samples, see my photos from Switzerland on my website, the majority taken by the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, the rest with the 24-70mm f/2.8L.
www.filipmakowski.com
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2008
|
|
Breitling65
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 31, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4994
|
|
Review Date: Oct 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, weathersealed, F2.8, excellent L colors and contrast, sharp in compare to 17-40L, not heavy.
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm is lot, also bit long. Price!!!
|
|
|
I tried several wide zooms and end up on this lens for now. Excellent replacement for 17-40L, superwide with FF body. One of the best Canon zoom lenses, however as any zooms slightly behind of primes in any aspects. I would suggest this lens to anyone with FF body, lens producing excellent wide effects on 16mm.
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2008
|
|
albertino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 23, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Esemplare nitidezza e contrasto.
Robusto e degno della lettera L
|
|
Cons:
|
Costoso
|
|
|
Il mio esemplare è eccezionale.
Leggermente morbido a 2,8 ma da f/5,6 in poi dona la nitidezza e contrasto necessari.
Utilizzato decisamente per il paesaggio a f/8 rende il massimo.
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2008
|
|
lubutterfly
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality, Fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, not as sharp at both ends. 82mm filter ? B+W MRC KSM 82mm CPL Cost alot.
|
|
|
I have had this lens for just over a year now. I use it with my 5D and my 350D. I also own the 17-40 F4L USM.
However I now rarely use the 17-40mm, many people will disagree or ask why. considering the 17-40mm is sharper at both ends. but do you always shoot on F22 or at 16mm ? the sweet spot for this lens is at 22mm F5.6/F8.
Well there are 2 really good reasons you will want to buy this lens if you are considering.
one, low light, if you are always shooting in low light or indoors say, parties or sports events where you are on hand held all the time without a tri/mono pod the 2.8 really makes a big difference from getting the shoot to not.
two, the build quality with a good filter on it you complete the weather sealing. when you have both the 17-40mm and 16-35mm in your hands you will feel the difference.
If money is not a issue this is a great lens to go for.
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2008
|
|
Tudor Seulean
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 23, 2008
Location: Romania
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 24, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $2,500.00
|
|
Pros:
|
|
|
Cons:
|
Terrible left edge in most test pictures
|
|
|
I bought this lens a few days ago and can say I am terribly disappointed. I tested it against my EOS 400D kit lens, the EF-S 18-55mm, and couldn't help being appalled by the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM's performance on the left edge of the frame at focal lengths of 16-17mm. At 18mm and above this issue seems to disappear. At the center the 16-36mm lens is the sharper, I must admit, but I bought this lens for architecture mainly and so was really counting on being able to use it at 16-17mm, but no, it looks like I'm not going to be able to do that.
I shot cityscapes, individual buildings, walls, churches and the results were consistent: the 16-35mm lens was consistently SOFTER than the kit lens at the left-hand side edge of the photos at focal lengths of 16-17mm. The pictures were shot in broad daylight, stopped down at f8, using a tripod. I wonder what's the point of having a lens that can do focal lengths below 18mm if the extra edges you get below 18mm are total crap? I based my choice mainly on The-Digital-Picture.Com review which speaks very highly of this lens. Unfortunately, I only saw this (fredmiranda) forum after I bought the lens. I will send it to Canon to have it checked but I am sure they'll just claim there's nothing wrong with it. So now I am stuck with this $2,500 investment in a lens I can't use to shoot my architecture - which was the only reason I bought it.
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2008
|
|
matty lough
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 22, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor performance across a wide range of focal lengths and f-stops. Very expensive for what you do get.
|
|
|
This lens is supposed to take pictures at focal lengths from 16mm to 35mm. If we essentially take this to be 20 individual focal lengths, then only 8 of those are fully fit for purpose. Its an f2.8 lens, but at any focal length only becomes useful for picture taking from f8, and with the limitations of the physics f22 is not much use either. So essentially out of 7 f-stops, only 3 are useful, unless you always ensure you have only sky and other non-detail items in the corners. If you sell a lens with a maximum aperture of f2.8, then I can accept you might want to offer this to enhance a bright viewfinder image, but you would at least expect some image quality to start at f4. What I tend to do for landscapes (on a 1Ds 3) therefore is to shoot wider than I want and crop off the poor outer portions of the image. This is not good for a lens at this price level. I have kept my old Olympus Zuiko 21mm lens, which is sharp right to the very corners, OK its a prime, but its 30 years old! You can get reasonable performance at 21-28mm at f13, but thats about it. I would have much preferred to spend my £1100 on an 18-28mm f4 lens with decent performance across all the focal lengths, where what this lens does is give you a 21-28mm f8 lens. Poor performance again from Canon. I have now got a Zeiss 25mm lens, my 21mm Zuiko and will add a 18mm Zeiss as soon as I can get one. Sorry Canon, but you should get some lessons from Nikon with their 14-24 lens.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
116
|
325024
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
