 |
|
|
shehab
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focus, sharp at all apertures, good edge sharpness and no CA
|
|
Cons:
|
kind of pricey
|
|
|
I never tried the Mk I of this lens, so I cant really say how much of an improvement this new version is.. but everything about this lens is great so far. I just switched over from a Sigma 15-30, which for the price is very good, but this lens absolutely blows it out of the water in every respect (not to mention i can now use all my filters)
I haven't experienced any of the CA in the corners that a few others have seen, and mine has been quite sharp in the corners even at 2.8. By f/5.6 its the sharpest super-wide ive seen. Not much vignetting either. I was surprised by the macro possibilities, especially with a 12mm extension tube behind it.
If you can afford it and can put it to good use, i cant recommend it enough.
|
|
 Jan 28, 2008
|
|
Alex2008
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jan 25, 2008
Location: Belarus
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Low Profile Filters...5
Quick word of advice: if you buy the suggested B&W haze filter ($125, gulp), be aware that you have to use the tupperware-like lens cap supplied with the filter; there aren't threads for the Canon lens cap. This is a feature, not a bug. And you should buy the filter: you really don't want a $1400 lens to get a scratch on the front element, do you?
Other than that: just echoing what others have already said. Fantastic lens from 16-24, perfectly OK from 24-35. This lens is one of the three zooms us full-frame shooters should always have in the bag: 16-35 f2.8 II, either the 24-70 or 24-105 IS, and a 70-200 or 70-300. 1.6X crop camera users are better served by the 10-22 EF-S.
------------------------------
Drywall Lifts
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2008
|
|
Andre Goli
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 21, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1819
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lighter than the other zoom, well built, Really sharp at 2.8, and greater when close down, almost no distorsion at 16mm
|
|
Cons:
|
At 2.8 by very low lite, might be noiser than a prime like the 85L
|
|
|
I owned a Canon 10-22mm with a crop sensor, loved it but I have to sell it when I exchange my 20D for a 5D. When I first got the 16-35 II from a fellow guy from Fred Miranda, its size surprised me at first... Very light in comparizon with the others L that I have... When I tried it, I was absolutely thrilled by the IQ it produced when compared with pix taken with the 10-22mm.. Sharp at any length and aperture... The other thing I have noticed is the quasi absence of distorsion at 16mm with the 5D compared with the 10-22mm at 10 mm... At 10mm with the 10-22mm, I got funny faces because of this distorsion. I tried it with my 16-35mm II on my 5D at 16mm, and bye bye funny faces... (that's the only thing I regret about the 10-22mm). This one give you solid pictures.. Even the angle of a wall at 10mm on my 20D looked round. On the 5D, at 16mm, the angle are almost straight.... This one sit now with dignity among my small collection of L lenses I am proud of... 28-70mm 2.8L, 85mm 1.2L and the 70-200mm 2.8L.
May be I got a good copy, but I suspect that most of the people who are bitching that lens were not that lucky.
My next purchase.... mmmm .... may be the 34L or the 135L
Look they are pretty hot as well...
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008
|
|
Finn Magne
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Canons sharpest ultra wideangle zoom lens. Good sharpness on f16 and f11, distorsion and cromatic aberration well corrected.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very poor resolution and lots of vignetting on f2,8. Poor sharpness in the corners down to f5,6.
|
|
|
I use this lens a lot on my EOS 5D camera for landscapes. A very good lens as long as you step down to at least f11 or even better: f16. On 24mm this lens gives better sharpness than the 17-40L, 24-105L and 24-70L zooms (I have owned them all) as long as you step down to at least f11. On f4 the 24-105L is the best choice, on f8 the 24-70L, but both of them have very much barrell distorsion.
Dispite the problems in the f2,8 to f8 area I therefore still own the EF 16-35L mk.II and use it a lot for landscapes (where I most of the time step down to f11 anyway). But I have added the EF 24/1,4L lens (which is Canons sharpest wideangle lens below 35mm) for low light situations, because this is a much sharper lens between f2,8 and f11. On f2 the 24L is sharper than the 16-35L mk.II on f5,6!
I have also also compared the 5D with 16-35L mk.II to the 40D with EF-S 10-22mm. Canon EF-S 10-22/3,5-4,5 gives much better sharpness/contrast I all situations except on f11 and f16 where the 16-35L mk.II wins because of the EOS 5D's higher number of pixels. Wide open the 16-35L mk.II is very soft compared to the 10-22mm.
Nikon have now launched the 14-24mm zoom which gives Canon a real knock out. Can Canon do something about it in the near future?
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2008
|
|
thedruid
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 1, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1368
|
|
Review Date: Jan 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Better corner sharpness, flare suppression, lower vignetting
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Finally have has this lens long enough to compare with my 17-40L both used on a 5D. Corners are much, much better none of the softness seen on the 17-40L at f5.6, flare is well suppressed so much improved compared to the latter. I can shoot city scenes at dusk with lots of extraneous light sources without worrying about weird flare spots. Vignetting has not been a problem so far and having f2.8 available is a huge plus.
Is i worth the money? If you use it to earn a crust by all means yes.
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008
|
|
chipotle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Contrasty, good in low light. Sharp to edges, even at 16mm f2.8 (although beginning to soften a bit in corners)
|
|
Cons:
|
different size filters and lens cap than other L lenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2008
|
|
Santoso
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing contrast, color and quick focusing low light arsenal
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive price and filter
|
|
|
Philip I think it think you miss the point of having big aperture lens. You have to compare it in low light. If you like comparing lens in bright daylight, heck I say even tamron 17-50 satisfied your needs already. A suggestion to compare its vignetting, glare and ghosting as well. You might also have a bad copy in hand. As for me, apart from its price this lens is a must for canon full frame.
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2007
|
|
Fjellfalck
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 4, 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 363
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,349.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp!, crispy- even wide open !- Sharper than my excellent 17-40 - also in the corners. Weather/dust sealing, very little vignetting, excellent flare handling
Very solid. Excellent IQ - better than my 17-40 - And it is good.
|
|
Cons:
|
As all wide angle lenses - they are all (perhaps except the 14mm f/2.8) slightly soft in the corners wide open. Visible especially in upper left corner - but not more than my 17-40 wide open.
|
|
|
After some hours with testing, comparing to my sharp and versatile 17-40 f/4.0
I conclude:
Sharper than 17-40 wide open at f/2.8 all focal lengths.
Slightly sharper also above f.8.0 at all focal lengths
Very sharp in center even wide open
Slightly soft in some corners (upper left) wide open at f.2.8. In average better corner sharpness wide open than 17-40 at f 4.0.
Very little vignetting
No flare problems
Same feel as the 17-40 but slightly larger/heavier - very solid
Weather/dust sealing and I need it for the Nordic weather
Slightly more crispy in the colors and better contrast than the 17-40.
A little bit more WOW factor than the very good 17-40.
The intension of buying the 16-35 f/2.8 II was not to replace my very useful 17-40. I will still use it for landscape shooting and lighter hiking. However I simply need a faster wide lens for some kind of shooting (low light). I also use the 10-22 EFS. The excellent EFS 17-55 was not a good alternative for me. Im shooting mostly outdoors and the lack of dust/weather sealing was not appealing to me. Either was the flare or vignetting performance of the 17-55 IS. I do not need IS for short focal lengths. And
I guess I will supplement with a FF one day. Happy shooting!
Highly recommended!
Tested with 40D.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2007
|
|
Philipp Oscity
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 11, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2007
|
|
jirok12944
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
performance, build
|
|
Cons:
|
price
|
|
I've upgraded 17-40L to 16-35L mk2 four months ago, waiting for a miracle. But no miracle this time...  It is decent lens with almost flawless optical performance!!! Unfortunately it's not noticeable step-up compare to 17-40L, taking triple price in consideration and only one step difference, my upgrade did not make sense and/or had good justification.
If money not an issue, I'd say this is the best wide angle zoom!!! But I'd spend this money on a prime if I new
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2007
|
|
Phast1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 14, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2082
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, sharp, relatively small.
|
|
Cons:
|
big expensive filter
|
|
|
Well worth the dollars. I've owned 2 16-35 MkI's and was never happy with either of them. The 17-40 trumped it but I couldn't be stuck with an f/4 lens so used the ef-s option at that time.
Took a chance with the new MkII version of this lens and am very glad I did. To me it's a completely different lens. It's everything I wanted from the MkI but never got. It is sharp and very contrasty (sic?). It seems to peak at 16mm, second place goes to 35mm and a close 3rd at 24mm. I feel like I got 2 wicked primes for the price of a zoom... bonus.
This lens is glued to my 5D 90% of the time. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2007
|
|
Peter Kotsa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 265
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,200.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
|
improved in some areas over the original, however at f2.8, the original is sharper..very dissapointed.
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2007
|
|
Jerren
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1093
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,449.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast WA zoom. Its what I've been missing for a very long time. It completes my zoom holy trinity with the (24-70 and 70-200 2.8L IS)
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm Gripe Geeze, thats huge and filters are very expensive.
|
|
|
Well I finally did it. I've moved from my lovechild 17-40 f4L to my beloved 16-35 2.8L II. And it was everything that I expected. I don't know how to explain it but something about the 16-35 2.8L just feels right in my hands. In my 17-40 review I mentioned how the 17-40 was only used about 10% of the time for my work and increasing. Well this lens, is actually one of my work horses for my wedding work as well as everyday stuff. I would have to say this lens is attatched to one of my bodies about 66% of the day. Its used alot for the prep shots, limo shots, detail shots, creative formal shots, and dancing at the ceremony shots.
Of course the 82mm filter size is a piss off but I live with it. Thats my only complaint.
Its nice and sharp. Although the zoom range is short to most, its very functional for my taste.
I think the 17-40 would be fine for most photographers, but I need the extra stop of speed for my work as I love to shoot using natural light. Landscape guys looking for a WA L zoom, get the 17-40 f4L and save about $800.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2007
|
|
blue_streak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, Colors, Build
|
|
Cons:
|
Noticed minor flare, but does not worry me too much.
|
|
|
After some deliberation and testing, I have grown attached to this lens, and it did not take too long for that matter. I was hesitant about spending over twice the cost of the 17-40, but in the end I opted for this nice piece of glass. I am impressed with the wide view it has (even on a 40D) and I am really looking forward to using it on a full frame body. I have noticed that when I have the center focus point active (only) wide landscape shots turn out magnificently sharp. Once you get used to manipulating this precision instrument into doing what you want it too, it does not let you down. The 2.8 aperture is quite fun and, even though it is a wide angle, can create beautiful background blur and really emphasize what you want to stand out most in the frame. Dont make the mistake of looking through the view finder and walking towards the object you want to shoot as you might end up walking right into it! It is amazing how close you can get to an object and have its entirety in the view finder! The colors are great and the overall feel is what I was looking for. I know I have to buy an 82mm filter, but thats ok too.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2007
|
|
Huib Nederhof
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good performance
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Much better than the 'old' 16-35mm. But be careful! I have to test 4 samples before I had a good one. The other were worse the Mark1.
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2007
|
|
Evan Baines
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 15, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 4786
|
|
Review Date: Oct 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb image quality, sharp to the corners, well built
|
|
Cons:
|
Minor barrel distortion, 82mm filter
|
|
|
I never thought I'd enjoy a zoom this much.
The center sharpness is perhaps a hint off the best L primes (135L), but its still quite crisp, even wide open. Stopped down, the center sharpness holds steady but the edges come up to a really nice, even resolution across the full-frame.
Superb wide angle for a full frame cam.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
116
|
324942
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
