 |
|
|
Sea Dragon Rex
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautiful color and contrast with sharp images even wide open. Fast, silent focus. Weather sealing and build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filter and price but that is expected
|
|
|
I've had this lens for about six months and have been very happy with it. I also have the 24-70 2.8L and more and more I've been going to this lens because of the extra width and the beautiful image quality.
The image quality is slightly nicer than that of the 17-40L so you need to decide if the extra stop and the slight improvement in IQ is worth the extra money. For me it was because the extra stop has allowed me to get shots what would have required flash with my 17-40L.
Finally, I based on the reviews of this lens I don't think I would purchase a lens from Europe as it appears that most of the negative and lower reviews are from there.
|
|
 Aug 20, 2008
|
|
Steven Park
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: May 29, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 487
|
|
Review Date: Aug 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,650.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp throughout the range. f 2.8. Solid Build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft at extreme end. Vignetting with hood attached.
|
|
|
I have the lens for a month now and it is better than 17-40L that I had before which I sold it 6 months ago. Its sharpness is excellent in center but at extreme end it is soft. I got this because of better image quality improvement on corners from Version 1. Distortion is not bad for a zoom lens.
Main issue with this lens is the vignetting at wide end. Even without filter and hood, it shows even when I stop down several stops. But in real photos it is not that bad.
In all, this is a must have lens for Canon FF users for landscape. It performs better than any other UWA zooms or prime in my opinion. Unless you are into alternative MF primes.
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2008
|
|
candreyo80
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 12, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jul 16, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,400.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Good Build Quality, Wide Angle on FF, Colors and Contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft & Blurry corners, even stopped down past f/8. Too expensive
|
|
I currently own the Canon 10-22 EFs, 17-35 f/2.8 L and the Sigma 10-20 EX and 12-24 EX, in addition to two (yes, two) Canon 16-35 MKII
That's 6 UWA lenses I'm able to directly compare to each other on my 5D and 40D. Unfortunately, the 16-35 MKII does not rank at the top of the list. I've spent an entire day with both my cameras on a tripod shooting everything from boat's to tree's in a field with no less then 600 pictures taken between the different cameras and lenses.
On the 40D:
The Canon 10-22 wins hands down. Its tack sharp in the corners even wide open. The Sigma 12-24 comes in at a close second, being nearly as sharp. The Sigma 10-20 EX comes in third, followed by the 16-35 MKII. The 16-35 MKII's problem is corner softness and blur at every imaginable focal range and f/stop. While the center always remains tack sharp, even wide open. The corners are absolutely rubbish and unacceptable for a lens of this price and caliber. The Canon 17-35 L is at the bottom of the list, managing corners even worse then the 16-35 MKII.
On the 5D:
Not much difference. While I can not test the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 EX on FF. I can test the other lenses.
The Sigma 12-24 EX wins hands down. Its corner sharpness once stopped down to f/8 is excellent! Its color and contrast are good also. The 16-35 MKII, is atrocious. The center is still sharp, but the corners are so blurry and soft, the lens is unusable. It's as if someone smeared vaseline around the corners of the lens.
This prompted me to send the lens to Canon for calibration. I received the lens back two weeks later, and the results were no different. Again, the lens went back to Canon. And again the lens came back with Canon claiming "The lens is within spec". The corners are so awful, it's a joke that Canon can actually pass this lens off for the price they make you pay. At this point, I was seriously tempted to throw this lens against the wall and claim insurance. But...
Refusing to believe the 16-35 MKII was indeed this bad, I purchased another one. But not before trying 3 different ones at the Camera store. I bought the sharpest of the three and ran in through the tests. This new copy was "remarkably" better, being sharper then the Sigma 12-24 on my 40D, but still not as good as the Canon 10-22 EFs
On my 5D, the new 16-35 MKII copy is as sharp as my Sigma 12-24 EX (it's possible I have a grade A, or Godly copy of the 12-24?). This was the type of performance I was expecting from this lens originally.
I still can not rate this lens high, as my initial copy is Rubbish and Canon claims there is nothing wrong with it. Because the IQ was soo bad, I could not even sell the lens used. I ended up giving it to my GF with a Canon 350D for her Birthday. While she loves the lens (ignorance is Bliss!), I can't help but feel guilty now pawning off such a POS on her 
The good copy of this lens I still have, I now plan to sell. As for the cost and my needs, the 16-35 MKII is still overpriced and performs no better then the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 12-24 from what I've seen (aside for being f/2.8, which I don't need).
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008
|
|
dprees
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 56
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality, my copy had reasonable IQ at 16mm to 24mm.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor IQ at 28mm, and terrible IQ at 35mm (significantly worse than old 18-55mm kit lens at ALL apertures).
|
|
|
Finally decided to pop for one of these, and ordered one from a reputable HK dealer. Lens arrived, and initial impressions from handling the lens were good.
However, first images did not impress, and so I set up comparative tests with other lenses covering equivalent focal lengths, using LiveView on a 450D, with tripod, MLU and remote release to eliminate variables as far as possible.
Results were very interesting. Centre performance was not stunning, but OK. The corner performance (even on a 1.6 crop camera) was however far from acceptable, even stopped down, at focal lengths of 28mm or greater. At 35mm, the IQ in the corners with the lens wide open were nothing short of abysmal -- the quality was so poor, it was visible on the rear screen. Comparative tests with an EFS 18-55mm (the first version) at f5.6 and f11 showed that the kit lens trounced the L.
On the positive side, at 20mm, the L was better than my 20mm f2.8 USM, so it was not all bad.
All in all, I wasn't impressed, and attempts to find out if the lens could be adjusted in the UK by Canon or its service centres failed, so I decided to return the lens for a refund.
If I buy this lens again, I'm going to perform tests on a copy in the shop before putting my money down. I may try out the new Zeiss 18mm f3.5 when I can, as an alternative.
There certainly are bad copies of this lens around, and though I own many (17) EF lenses, many of them L, I'm going to be more cautious about buying Canon glass in the future. At this price point, rubbish lenses like this should not be in the supply chain.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2008
|
|
Conrad Tan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 27618
|
|
Review Date: Jun 3, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,549.00
|
|
Pros:
|
So so on a 30D.... but now on my 5D... HOLY COW!
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting..
|
|
|
The soft images I experienced with this baby on my old 30D completely went away when I put it on my 5D. Now... I have vignetting, which I can easily fix in PP. It is so wide on a FF. I never knew landscapes could be this fun!
|
|
|
Jun 3, 2008
|
|
muerte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2008
Location: Austria
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide Angle on FF, Super color, very fast focusing, weight..
|
|
Cons:
|
Price maybe, but for me it worth, so it's not really a negative.
|
|
|
Great lens, fast and silent focus, the color worth it's L name. very sharp, but you have to know where you are focusing when under f5.6 while wide open.
|
|
|
May 13, 2008
|
|
Bert 1969
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 13, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Good contrast, great build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very poor performance from f/2.8 to f/5.6 especially in the corners.
|
|
|
I bought this lens because I was not happy with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens I had, sold that one and bought a prime 50mm f/1.4.
But now I was missing a wide angle lens so I bought this 16-35mm II f/2.8 after reading serveral reviews.
My main photography is concert, events and people so I need the f/2.8 or f/4.0.
I'm very disappointed about the performance of this lens
at f/2.8 at any distance it is soft in the center and very soft in the corners.
At f/4.0 is starts performing a little bit better but far from good at 24mm, 16mm and 35mm are still bad.
At f/5.6 it is still bad at 16mm, almost good at 24mm and at 35mm a little better then at 16mm.
For people who are making landscape picture from f/5.6 or smaller this might be a good lens but I didn't buy a f/2.8 lens that starts performing at f/8.0
For this price you might expect a better product.
recently i had to make a picture of a band in the dressingroom and they lined up for the picture, I took it at 18mm f/3.2.
Next to my a young guy was asking if I could take a picture with his cam of the band and him.
He had a Nikon D50 with a 18-70mm f/3.5-f/5.6, looking a the display of both cams I could see that the picture I took with his cam was much sharper than it was with my cam.
So I was standing there with my 16-35mm lens which costs more than twice the D50+18-70 lens together and I was not able to make a better picture.
Very sad, this is the second time I'm very disappointed in a Canon L zoomlens, the other one was the 24-70 which was not useable at f/2.8 and still very soft at f4.0.
It is not my camera because my 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 very, very sharp at f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4.0 IS is deadly
sharp right at f/4.0
Maybe I will take a look at the 14mm and the 24mm, it looks like Canon is not able to produce f/2.8 zoom lenses which perform good at f/2.8.
|
|
|
May 13, 2008
|
|
george malamis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 776
|
|
Review Date: May 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 12, 2008
|
|
craigdoogan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 7, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 7, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
|
|
Cons:
|
soft @ 2.8
Unatractive blurry corners
|
|
|
I purchased this lens for wedding photography and to replace my 17-40L. I needed the extra stop. I have had 2 copies of this lens, sent the first back as it was so poor compared to my other L lenses in every aspect. Sharpness was very poor at all apertures, I couldnt use the lens at 2.8 it was so bad. Got my new copy and it was just the same! Even stopped down it is not comparable to any of my L's, my 17-40 outperforms this lens easily as far as wow factor and sharpness goes. Maybe my 17-40 is a grade A copy? My opinion is that this lens is very poor for such an expensive item, I would hate to think what the mark 1 version is like.
|
|
|
May 7, 2008
|
|
Conrad Tan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 27618
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,529.30
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super sharp especially after f5.6 through f11 (on my copy).
|
|
Cons:
|
So so on bokeh... very expensive for the average photographer (but worth it)
|
|
|
I took some shots at f2.8 right out of the box, and it was a little soft. Then I tried more shots at f5.6 and f11, and WOW... razor sharp. I put it on my 30D and then on a tripod and tried some landscape shots. Very good with the 1.6 crop, but I'm sure it is much better on a full frame. Highly recommend if you can afford one.
|
|
|
May 1, 2008
|
|
puyan Kachani
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The best wide angle zoom lens I have ever tried.Sharp, beautiful colors
|
|
Cons:
|
price
|
|
|
This lens is simply so razor sharp at every focal length and every F/stop . It is very sharp wide open at f/2.8 from edge to edge at every focal length which is practically unheard of.Build quality is excellent and its focussing speed is amazing.
While expensive, it is a bargain at this price for what you get.
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2008
|
|
mattrosc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 7, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Prime lens resolution (see negative though). Lovely colour rendition
|
|
Cons:
|
Performance wide open is average
|
|
|
I approached this lens purchase with some trepidation. I had a 17-40 and was disappointed. I use the lens on a 1Ds mkII. I do a lot of wide angle work and I have a Zuiko 21mm f2 (superb performance into the edges, but very bad CA) and a Zeiss 25mm with canon adapter (superb lens). I wanted a very wide lens (18mm), but could not find anything with the performance and that did not require major surgery to allow its use on the Canon. I read of the new Nikon 14-24, and considered buying it and an adapter (see 16-9.net). However there is no obvious way to fit filters and flare is a problem. On the basis of the reviews on this site I bought the lens. I have not regretted it. It is better than the Zuiko and the equal of the Zeiss, though there is some distortion in the very corners at f11, but not an unacceptable amount. I never thought I would stop using my Zeiss, however that is exactly what I am doing. Performance is excellent at 16, 18, 21 and 24mm. There is one caviat however. If you want to shoot at f2.8 or f4, particularly at the very wide end, then corner distortion is a problem. If as I do you use a tripod and f11 (this is the best aperture at all focal lengths) and you want to carry less glass as I did, then this might very well be the lens for you. Colour rendition is excellent, very like the Zeiss with a cooler rendition and skies that actually look softly polarised.
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2008
|
|
chalford
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 1, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide, sharp, clear, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Price (but worth it)
|
|
I really wish this lens cost a little less. The price prevented me from buying it for a long time. Finally I got brave and bought it last fall so that I could shoot game 3 of the semi-final between the Sox and Indians. I was extremely happy with the lens. If you want to go wide... get this lens! You won't regret it. I've been told that for the most part 3rd party lenses can be as good as anything you buy from Canon unless you are looking at L glass.
When buying this lens I also considered the 10-22mm EF-S, but opted against it because I was suspicious that I would upgrade my XTi to a full-frame camera.
A month before I bought, I saw the older version of the 16-35mm f/2.8 L for sale for under $1,000. I was really tempted to buy it, but didn't. My understanding is that on a full-frame camera you want to get the version II because of the 82mm diameter. Apparently it helps eliminate vignetting... I can't say for sure.
While I was shooting on an XTi at the time it never really got as wide as I would have wanted. However that it an issue with the XTi and not the lens itself. I have upgraded to a 5D and am amazed at how well this lens performs.
I posted some of Fenway Park shots on my blog if anyone is interested in seeing some samples: http://web.mac.com/halfordchris/
One of the great things about a wide angle lens like this is that you can shoot with low shutter speeds. You really just have to keep it faster than 1/16th of a second (at the wide-end) which gives you a lot of freedom.
I love this lens. I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2008
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness at 2.8, control of CA, good distortion control at 16mm
|
|
Cons:
|
quality comes at a cost $$$
|
|
|
I have had the 17-35 2.8L, 17-40 4L, 16-35 2.8L and now the 16-35 2.8L II.
My favorite two lenses have been the 17-40L and this latest release. I find the build quality to be second to none. It is weather sealed and weighs the same as the original version.
Its control of lens flare and CA are absolutely excellent. I am very pleased. The lens is very sharp at 2.8 , even up to the corners and between 5.6-11 it rocks. Its resolving power looks to be better than the 17-40 and its smaller brother 16-35L.
Well done Canon.
pk
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2008
|
|
lextalionis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1076
|
|
Review Date: Mar 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,579.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, clarity, contrast, and colors are excellent!
|
|
Cons:
|
None really, except that it's a bit expensive.
|
|
Even though the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II USM is and expensive lens, I would highly recommend it. The AF is extremely quiet and very fast; it gives a high image quality!
Pros: Sharpness, clarity, contrast, and colors are excellent!
Cons: None really, except that it's a bit expensive.
Here are some sample shots taken with a Canon 30D
Lex
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2008
|
|
Mark Muntean
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, good contrast, no CA - great IQ over most of its range
|
|
Cons:
|
slightly soft (very slightly) focus at 35mm, different filter diameter
|
|
|
I just purchased this lens along with a 1DsMkIII body, and went out to do some tests. I wanted to compare this to other lenses I have at similar focal lengths. I wanted to determine which is the "go to" lens at certain focal lengths. If I have a shot to take at say 24mm or 35mm - which lens to choose? I tested all at f/11 - the limit where diffraction blurring begins to appear on the 1DsMkIII - and hence a useful setting for large DOF landscape work. I did not compare at wide open apertures since I rarely shoot wide open with wide angle lenses.
At a focal length setting of 24mm the new the 16-35mm outperformed the 24-75mm, 24-105mm, and the 24mm TSE (unfortunately I did not have a 24mm prime to test). The 16-35mm image was the sharpest, had no observable CA (unlike the others), and no observable vignette, and had excellent contrast and saturation. It was a hands down winner. I did not have a 24mm L prime to compare, but it is hard to imagine it being discernibly better. Still, this is a hypothesis to test.
At 35mm was still quite good, but it did show the slightest softness compared to the 24-70mm and the 24-105mm at that focal length. This is logical, since the 16-35mm is at the limit of its design range while the other lenses are into the middle of their range. Still, I was a little surprised to see the difference. It is enough to cause me to switch lenses if I need to shoot close to 35mm for a critical shot.
Across the range of the lens I was impressed by the consistent lack of vignette and distortion as compared to my other L zooms.
I would use this over any of my other lens options in the range from 16mm to around 30mm. Above this the 24-70mm or the 24-105mm begin to dominate in sharpness. Once again, I don't have the 24mm or 35mm primes to compare to.
Although I did not have the 24mm L prime to compare to, I did use the 24mm TSE, which for me is a real mixed bag. The movements are clearly useful for certain situations, but the quality of the optics is just not as good as other Canon lenses IMO (lots of CA), so I think I would tend to use the 16-35mm and go to software tools for solving the problems where the movements are otherwise. If Canon made a version of the 24mm TSE with better optics, and much less vignetting over the width of shift, this would be an option. That lens does not exist however, and probably never will - just not enough market.
In summary, the 16-35mm is an incredible lens, and will be the lens to go to whenever I am in the under 30mm range of focal lengths. At 30-35mm I would be willing to use this, unless the 24-70mm (or perhaps a 35mm prime) were available and the shot was important enough to take the time to swap.
This is probably as close to perfect as a commercially viable wide angle zoom will get however. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
116
|
324894
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
