 |
|
|
Rob Webster
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 1, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A positive improvement in terms of edge definition, particularly wide open, over the original version. Contrast is superb and distortion is not worth mentioning. Very pleased with the copy I have.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really. Would like to see it lower in price.
|
|
|
Bought this lens new as I am a fan of wide angle photography.
Thought originally about getting the Canon 14mm, but decided
that the 16-35mm was more suited to my needs. Very pleased with the purchase and consider the les to be a keeper.
|
|
 Jul 8, 2007
|
|
Leo Somers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 23, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb image quality, beautiful bokeh, very well build.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
Congratulations Canon, you did it!! Finally this widezoom provides me the professional images I was hoping for. The 16-35 L II produces really superb images of exceptional quality, in every way: sharpness, color, contrast, everything is so great about this lens.
I sold my 17-40 L to get this lens. Yes, it is very expensive, but worth every penny. I was a little bit disappointed about the 17-40, because it wasn't really tack sharp. I even sent it to Canon to calibrate it. After that calibration it was much better, I really liked this lens, but yet I decided to go for the 16-35 II.
I use it on a 5D and the images are just outstanding, crispy clear, very sharp. Even at F2.8 this lens is amazing. The bokeh is so lovely. If you view the images on a 22" screen, be aware: sometimes you can't believe your eyes anymore  This lens is just fantastic!
The only minuspoint could be the 82mm filter size. I was using an expensive B&W 77mm slim circ. pol., which became useless, so I had to buy a 82.
For those who still hesitate to buy this lens I would say: wait no longer, but run to your supplier and buy this masterpiece. You won't regret your purchase, not even for a second.
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2007
|
|
veroman
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3530
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
• Edge-to-edge sharpness
• Low distortion
• Color and contrast
• Build
|
|
Cons:
|
• None
|
|
This new 16-35mm is everything everyone says it is.
I had rented the original 16-35 f/2.8L for a couple of weeks or so in order to have a reference point. Aside from what I'd considered quite minor and expected edge distortion and softness, I thought the rented lens was pretty terrific. It had far less barrel distortion than I had anticipated or was expecting. Edge softness, though, was pretty apparent as was edge "stretching." Still, I liked that lens a lot and couldn't help but wonder in what ways the Mark II version could be an improvement.
Well, it's definitely an improvement and worth every one of the few extra dollars over the Mark I.
FYI: the Mark II was recently tested and compared to two all-time favorite wide angles (Olympus 18mm & Leica 19mm primes). The new Canon came out ahead in every respect, but particularly in the areas of edge distortion & edge softness. The review can be found at http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1635ii_a/c1635ii_a1.html
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2007
|
|
nickminers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 17, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Full frame IQ, bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
What Canon have achieved with this lens is nothing short of spectacular. To get a 16mm lens so sharp right to the edges of a full frame image (on an EOS 5D) with almost no CA is extremely impressive. Of course this comes at a high price but given how desirable this is it's worth every penny (or cent). The 82mm filter size may bother some but in my case I was replacing a Sigma wide angle lens with the same size so it's subjective. Possibly the ultimate wide-angle zoom.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2007
|
|
nivenu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 16, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super optics, very sharp, excellent contrast. Ive not noticed
any flare. CA very slight at full aperture, but hardly noticeable.
Highly recommend this fine lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Usual 82mm filter size moan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2007
|
|
XAOC
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great sharpness, color and bokeh. Great built quality. Fast focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price and 82mm filter
|
|
This is my first high quality lens that I own and the photos I get with this lens are great. It is fast and the photos are sharp. I just don't like the filter size, everything else is great.
http://antoski.com/tips.html
|
|
|
May 31, 2007
|
|
EyeBrock
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 3, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 960
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, speed, bokeh, sharp, as well as the bloody good pictures I get from it.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, price of filters, price of gas and Stella Artois,world peace.
|
|
|
Well, bit the bullet and shelled out my retro cheque on this very nice lens.
I got the 24-70 ten months ago (which I love dearly) and I toyed with the idea of buying a 5D to replace/add to my 20D. Change of plan.
I nearly bought the 17-40 but I’ve got well used to 2.8 and my previous Tamron lens purchases have taught me that the cheaper option isn’t the way for me. No disrespect to Tam owners but photography is all about personal choice. This lens is a porsche to Yamrons 17-35 2.8-4.
I choose Canon “L” lenses.
The 16-35 gives me the same kind of sharpness I get with the 24-70 at the real wide end. The 1.6 crop really was limiting me on the 24 end but 16 mm of ths lens makes a huge difference.
Great build quality (should be for $1840 Canadian!), and an easy transition from the 24-70.
It’s about the same size and weight as the 24-105 but the 82mm filter size means I have to get another expensive cir pol and the Rodenstock UV filter cost more than my mates new Kodak point-and-shoot!
Great bokeh, fast, well built and sharp. What more could you want? Cheaper would have been nice!
No second guessing on this one. Great lens and my bag is complete. For now……….
|
|
|
May 29, 2007
|
|
Film_Ruled
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 653
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Much better than the old version, better sharpness overall, especially from 16-22mm. Fantastic flare control, even better than Nikon's 17-35 2.8.
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm front filter size, but that is what step up rings are for.
|
|
|
I think what has happened in the digital and internet age is that we now have a bunch of cat and bird photographers who work in the software development field by day and do lens tests by night. So it is no surprise that everyone seems to be an expert when they do not know squat about optical limitations. Any ultra-wide 2.8 zoom is going to have limits and this one is no exception. But....the performance is indeed exceptional, well worth the price in my line of work. I would have paid $1,800 for this lens. Canon is the world leader in the digital photography world and this lens is yet one more reason why. Nikon simply can't touch the great lineup that Canon has. All the anti-full frame hype is just that: Hype. In real world use, this optic is outstanding. The color saturation, contrast and sharpness are only second to primes in the same range.
|
|
|
May 23, 2007
|
|
D.K. Owens
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 6, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,199.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Used outdoors, the sharpness of the lens stands out. Colorful landscapes are a bonus background.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.....
|
|
|
This lens is a fantastic ultra-wide angle tool. I've been able to shoot everything with crystal clear clarity and precision. SO much has been said about the "dark-cornering," but at f/9 there's no visible fall-off. I purchased this lens, refurbished by canon and so far, I've taken several printable lansdscape shots.
I was reluctant to purchase this lens because several reviewers had posted comments about "dark cornering." Used indoors, there maybe some, however, with flash and beyond the f/2.8 aperture, this lens is truly worth having.
I surmise that with the EOS 1Ds Mark II, this lens has greater capabilities. Using it with a full frame camera should alleviate any trepidation on the part of a prospective buyer.
My suggestion: go ahead, get it if you can afford it. The results, with the right settings are sure to produce some gems.
|
|
|
May 8, 2007
|
|
Harvison
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: May 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,579.99
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Constant wide aperture - A nice match for a full frame - Good color and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly soft at corners wide open at 16mm.
|
|
|
I really like this lens overall. The soft issue mentioned above really isn't an issue, wide open is most often used in conjunction with a blurred background, so edge quality doesn't matter.
|
|
|
May 4, 2007
|
|
Sam Edwards
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 31, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Apr 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
f2.8 16mm Awesome Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Price!
|
|
|
A good copy of this lens is as good as a super-wide-angle zoom is going to get for full frame. The corners are practically as sharp as the center at f4! Chroma aberation is hugely reduced compared to previous efforts. Canon has finally done it. I would postpone purchase if possible until the price comes in line with usual discounts.
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2007
|
|
Julius
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 26, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 879
|
|
Review Date: Apr 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,479.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent built quality like all Canon L lenses and very good performance in this wide angle range
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, 82mm filter thread.
|
|
|
My fist copy of this lens was not acceptable and I had to send it back but the second, replacement copy is definitely good enough to meet my expectations. Don’t expect miracles from this lens and you won’t be disappointed.
I have an excellent copy of the 17-40 f/4L lens and a perfect copy of the 24-70 f/2.8L lens, which I compared it to. It is better than my 17-40L lens up to and including f/5.6 and maybe, just maybe a touch better at f/8 at all corresponding focal lengths. At f/11-16 both of the lenses are equally sharp, the 16-35L II is a little better in the corners of the full size sensor image (5D). If you do not need the f/2.8, the extra 1mm at the wide-angle end and have a good copy of the 17-40L lens then you do not need this lens. Neither of these lenses comes even close at 35mm to the 24-70L lens, which is also noticeably better at f/2.8-5.6 at 24 and 28mm.
As a conclusion, this lens is definitely better than the previous version of this lens by at least 2 f/stop and slightly better than the 17-40L lens. It is not perfect but as good as it can be expected in this wide-angle zoom range and it is a keeper for me.
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2007
|
|
ltravieso
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,459.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent resolution the best super wide angle zoom I ever used specially at the edges.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
In my initial test photos this lens it is a big improvement over the older version and also the 17-40 lens,
Well controlled CA. In regards with the larger 82mm filter it is a very good design now you can used polarizer filters with no vignette.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2007
|
|
rathman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 550
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great image quality, fast focus, low CA, great improvement over the previous version
|
|
Cons:
|
A little soft at the extreme corners for pixel-peepers, 82mm filters, expensive
|
|
|
Center is sharp at 2.8 across the zoom range. Corners are slightly soft below f8 but acceptable. Seems to be more flare resistant than previous model - maybe because front element "retracts" as zoomed from 16 to 35? A little heavier and larger the earlier version but hardly noticable. Overall, I'm happy with the improvements.
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2007
|
|
Remford
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1391
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,599.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Outstanding edge to edge - vices of original 16-35 rectified. Excellent throughout entire focal length range with far better stray light control. Great L build and feel.
|
|
Cons:
|
Only 82mm in L lineup - unique filter required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2007
|
|
neilgundel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,599.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness
Contrast
Build Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filters not common with other Canon lenses.
Price is somewhat high right now, may come down.
Probably little or no improvement over 17-40L unless you have a full frame sensor.
|
|
|
At last there is a Canon lens covering this range with really good performance across the zoom range and corner to corner on a full frame camera such as the 1Ds mark II.
It has the usual stellar build quality you expect on the top tier "L" lenses.
Image quality is excellent, but if you have been spoiled by Canon's "L" telephotos, you should be aware that _nobody_ makes a lens in this category that is anything like them in terms of performance. Still, it is a clear improvement over the 17-40 in that regard on a full frame camera, especially at the wide end.
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
116
|
326662
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
