 |
|
|
Stono
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 4, 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, superb contrast, color saturation, and resolution. Sharp!
|
|
Cons:
|
None really
|
|
|
I am very satisfied, have sold a lot of landscape photos taken by this lens. Not as sharp as the old Canon 28-70mm (but then hardly any zooms are), but 16mm is indeed nice to have. Will indeed recommend this lens. L-quality zoom.
|
|
 Oct 3, 2007
|
|
Arro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Location: Mexico
Posts: 40
|
|
Review Date: Sep 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, at 2.8 and 16mm!, very nice star halo in the lights. clear pictures
|
|
Cons:
|
little soft at the edges at 35 mm. but very sharp at the center
|
|
|
The lens is not perfect. But after 300 pictures of a quinceañera. I'am very happy with the results.
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2007
|
|
Alan Goldstein
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 20, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 30
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
I am a long time user of the original 16-35 on a 1Ds and 5D for architectural interiors. After reading the reviews here and other places I thought I'd upgrade to the series II (Now that DxO supports it.)
I tested the series II in a store in comparison with my series one version and was disappointed. My main interest was to see if it performed better at 16mm at f8 (a typical aperture for me.) I didn't see much differnece but liked the original better. At f2.8, I the original was sharper at the center.
Some observations - the series II did not focus accurately (focused closer than it should have.) So I shot a series of images at slightly different distances to get pairs with matching focus. I also noticed that at f8, the star pattern from light fixtures was more prominent with the new series II.
Here's a link to illustrate -
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/16stars.jpg
I've posted some hi res high quality jpeg test shots to my web site if anyone wants to examine them. I am concerned that the series II lens I tested was a poor sample but I don't know. I plan to contact Canon for their opinion and then see if I can find a "better" sample to test.
Here are the links so you can download and compare the large files. (9+ megs each) I tried to be consistent enough to get meaningful results but these are not scientific tests. I left the EXIF data intact. (The old lens f8 sample shows a green spot on a camera case in the middle top of the shot. This was flare form a light above that didn't occur when the lens was moved a tiny amount.)
F8 -
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/new_16_8.jpg
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/old_16_8.jpg
F2.8 -
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/new_16_2.8.jpg
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/old_16_8.jpg
Thse were all converted with DPP to minimize softare influence on the files and have no sharpening added. I also converted with DXO to see how the lens optimization works on the two lenses.
Opinions are welcomed.
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2007
|
|
Alan Goldstein
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 20, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 30
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
I am a long time user of the original 16-35 on a 1Ds and 5D for architectural interiors. After reading the reviews hear and other places I thought I'd upgrade to the series II (Now that DxO supports it.)
I tested the series II in a store in comparison with my series one version and was disappointed. My main interest was to see if it performed better at 16mm at f8 (a typical aperture for me.) I didn't see much differnece but liked the original better. At f2.8, I the original was sharper at the center.
Some observations - the series II did not focus accurately (focused closer than it should have.) So I shot a series of images at slightly different distances to get pairs with matching focus. I also noticed that at f8, the star pattern from light fixtures was more prominent with the new series II.
Here's a link to illustrate -
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/16stars.jpg
I've posted some hi res high quality jpeg test shots to my web site if anyone wants to examine them. I am concerned that the series II lens I tested was a poor sample but I don't know. I plan to contact Canon for their opinion and then see if I can find a "better" sample to test.
Here are the links so you can download and compare the large files. (9+ megs each) I tried to be consistent enough to get meaningful results but these are not scientific tests. I left the EXIF data intact. (The old lens f8 sample shows a green spot on a camera case in the middle top of the shot. This was flare form a light above that didn't occur when the lens was moved a tiny amount.)
F8 -
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/new_16_8.jpg
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/old_16_8.jpg
F2.8 -
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/new_16_2.8.jpg
http://goldsteinphoto.com/16_35/old_16_8.jpg
Thse were all converted with DPP to minimize softare influence on the files and have no sharpening added. I also converted with DXO to see how the lens optimization works on the two lenses.
Opinions are welcomed.
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2007
|
|
Mark Holloway
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2005
Location: Thailand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality of build, Quality of images, f/2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Big
|
|
|
I have just taken this lens on holiday to Italy.
The quality of the images of cathedrals & museums is GREAT.
Pin sharp to the edges, no vignetting, great contrast & saturation.
Expensive ... but worth it
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2007
|
|
Memphis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 769
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, great colors, cost (next to a zeiss 21mm) Contrast is very nice.. I like
|
|
Cons:
|
I have none at this time
|
|
|
I got a chance to use this lens on my 5D and compare it to my (what I thought was a very sharp) 17-40L. I was shocked that this lens is sharper than my 17-40L in the corners throughout the focal range. It's not as sharp as my old Zeiss 21 but it was sharp enough to allow me to part with it and buy the 16-35L II and have some money left in my pocket for the new EOS 1Ds mkIII ( not much but some )
If you shoot full frame or the 1D 1.3 crop this lens is for you.
If you're on the 1.6 crop bodies I'd go with the 17-55 2.8 IS.
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2007
|
|
jamato8
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2162
|
|
Review Date: Aug 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,520.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, superb contrast, color saturation, resolution and good feel.
|
|
Cons:
|
None at this time, well filter cost but like the lens that is a one time purchase, I hope.
|
|
|
Having used the 17-35L for a number of years I always desired just a little more sharpness, contrast and saturation. Something I mention in the positives of the 16-35II. In many applications for my work as a visual anthropologist and natural history photographer the 17-35 was fine for the job and from what I have seen mine appeared to be a sharp copy. I had also seen some of the great wide angle shots by the Nikon lens of this range and I realized more of this quality would be welcome.
Well the 16-35II has come through in spades and I am very happy to have one in my bag now.
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2007
|
|
scooterapd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Aug 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide angle, lightweight, fast aperature.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not nearly as sharp as 17-55 EF-S for same $$. I witnessed flat colors, limited contrast on my 30D.
|
|
|
My 17-55mm f/2.8, which is my wedding workhorse, was sent to Canon due to an IS malfunction, so I rented this lens as a stand-in, using it on my 30-D. My 5-D is dedicated to my 70-200mm IS f/2.8L and I shoot with both the 30D and 5D during weddings. I was VERY disappointed in the 16-35mm. Compared to my 17-55 which is in the same price range, this lens is soft and grainy, even at f/5.6 and 35mm. I would only recommend this lens for full-frame cameras. If you're shooting with a 30D or 20D, GET THE 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens without thinking about it. In a recent "side-by-side comparison", my associate photographer shot a wedding with the 16-35mm on his 5D and my 17-55mm shots on my 30D look sharper and have more color saturation and contrast than his. Obviously, the L build quality is useful and if you are shooting full-frame, you don't have a choice, so those are some considerations as well. Overall, I'd consider the image quality of this lens on-par with my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2007
|
|
Fred.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,191.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb image quality,Edge-to-edge sharpness,good performance across the zoom range, very well build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
|
This lens is amazing, the best wide-angle zoomlens I ever used.
perfect on a 5D or 1D.
I really like this lens.
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2007
|
|
tallberg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 92
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
None worth mentioning.
|
|
|
I upgraded from a 17-40, and have used this lens for landscapes on a 5D for two months at the time of writing. The 17/40 was not bad, but the corner sharpness of the 16/35II is really significantly better on a full-frame camera - well worth the upgrade. For me, this quickly became a lens which I can just use and forget - it does not seem to have any issues or restrictions that would need to be taken into account. This is a very good thing indeed. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2007
|
|
ianws
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 17, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
|
|
Review Date: Aug 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I have always wanted this lens but the original version didn't seem to be suited for digital cameras. But with encouraging review on FM and else where I recently took a leap of faith and invested in the MK11 version. After two Weddings with it on the 5D it ticks all the boxes, I'm not interested in all the Tech Speak - the images are just AWESOME !
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I can recommend this lens without hesitation - its also very good on the 1D MK11 - but shines on the 5D - a good lens for film re-invented for digital - full 10 out of 10 for Canon
|
|
|
Aug 5, 2007
|
|
JKhoo
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 19, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 617
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,449.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Built. Optical quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I did not think the difference would be so apparent compared to a 17-40 but it really is. Contrast and color is just lovely. Environmental portraits are a lot of fun with this beauty. Wide enough to suck in the surrounding and quick enough in low light. I like it!
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2007
|
|
hahr
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2104
|
|
Review Date: Jul 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,479.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
this lens is corner-sharp at f/11 on my 1DsII -- something i wasn't expecting from an ultrawide zoom lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
the size takes some getting used to as it's the length of a 135L but the width (at the top) of an 85L.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2007
|
|
Zac Thomas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
An amazing lens in all respects
|
|
Cons:
|
Non as yet except that I am still waiting for the £60 cash back from Canon :-)
|
|
|
I must agree with all the positive comments posted in this forum to date.
It is indeed an amazing lens which produces sharp beautiful images attached to my 1D mark111
An expensive lens but in my experience without rival.
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2007
|
|
RCicala
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2512
|
|
Review Date: Jul 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,390.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb sharpness to the edges, low distortion, flare resistance is very good.
|
|
Cons:
|
None, within reason.
|
|
|
I've had the Mark I and it was a good lens in the center, weak outside of that. I'm one of those who adapted a Zeiss 21mm to get good edge sharpness on my full frame bodies, the Mark I 16-35 just didn't cut it.
The new version is a totally different beast - far sharper out from center, good sharpness to the edges. Not quite Zeiss 21 sharpness, but close and the Canon has less distortion, and, well, it zooms! This is an expensive lens that is worth every single dime. Finally a full frame wide zoom that's as good or better than anything else out there.
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2007
|
|
EveningSky
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 209
|
|
Review Date: Jul 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, excellent contrast, excellent colors
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
|
I am very impressed with this lens. It appears to do what it is supposed to do, very well. It is opening up new possiblities for WA photography for me.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
116
|
326660
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
