 |
|
|
Lunchb0x8
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Nov 19, 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focus, sharp and clear images, no CA in my copy.
|
|
Cons:
|
N/A
|
|
|
I picked up this lens from a local dealer on Boxing day thanks to their 10% off all lenses and bodies.
Since picking it up with a 24-105 f/4L I find I use this lens almost exclusively.
Takes great shots, 35mm on my old 650D allowed for some nice up close shots of people in party environments and dropping it to 16mm allowed me to pickup most of the room/deck of people without putting me out on the wet grass.
Without a doubt this lens is going to be a staple of my kit, especially since acquiring a 5DMkIII.
When it eventually dies (which I think it might with some of my trips I have planned) I will gladly buy another.
This is a great lens for most everything from landscapes to just picking up snaps in a room/bar environment.
|
|
 Apr 7, 2013
|
|
Pierre_B
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great optics, quality build
|
|
Cons:
|
Wish the focal length didn't double over the 24-70. Something like a 14-24 would be nice.
|
|
Still a slightly expensive lens, but as always, you get what you pay for. I'm mainly an urban photographer and a music photographer. While I only sparingly use it for shows, this is my go to lens for urban walkarounds. I love getting up close to things and people to capture to great moments, and nothing says "Ohhh" like shooting a wide cityscape
Here are some examples of the beauty of this lens:
35mm, f/2.8, ISO 6400, 1/6 shutter
http://pierrebphoto.com/2013/03/urban-the-old-boat-montreal-urban-photography/
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2013
|
|
juankgigo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 17, 2013
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, accurate, well built.
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive, very large filter size, a bit heavy but is expected on a lens like this.
|
|
|
I got this lens about a year ago and can't stop using it! I do love the zoom range of this lens especially when used on a FF camera. I find this lens attached to my 5D most of the time and love the fact that it can even be used as a macro lens, well, not so, but the minimum focusing distance is quite good for a wide angle. This lens is built like a tank and is fully weather sealed when used with a filter. Which by the way is an expensive filter, I went and bought my self a Canon polarizing filter and I am not impressed with the results, I would have prefered to buy a German make but it was more than $100 over the Canon filter.
Over all an excelent lens.
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2013
|
|
tororo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 26, 2010
Location: Japan
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Low CAs, 2.8, 16mm, USM, build quality, weather shield
|
|
Cons:
|
Flare, filter size, weight
|
|
My very good copy of 17-40L started to have some focus issue after years of heavy use so I looked for another good copy of 17-40L but no luck even after trying several new copies. I gave up and decided to go for 16-35mm 2.8L II instead. I tried just a few new copies and was able to find a very good copy without any decentering issue.
Comparing with 17-40L, I immediately noticed that 16-35L II is more prone to flare but it has less CAs. 17-40L is easier to handle due to its light weight and smaller filter size. However, it is actually nice to have 2.8 for more versatile photography with ultra wide angle.
Here are some sample shots.
16mm at f2.8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7608161602/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7822619012/
30-35mm at f8-11:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8075548587/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7597698790/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8073764186/
16-20mm at f8-11:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8081338608/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7602241386/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8079647921/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/8077093848/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7667436148/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/7655255836/
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2013
|
|
Todd Klassy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 288
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,699.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Much better than its predecessor. Nice colors and contrast. Lightweight, but durable as a 'L' lens should be. Great lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as I would like wide open at 35mm. BIG, expensive filter size.
|
|
The first 'L' lens I ever purchased was the first incarnation of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM and I was very pleased with the results, especially when mated to a variety of different Canon dSLR cameras, including the 20D, 50D, 5D, and 1D Mark III. However, once I moved to a camera with more megapixels, such as the 5D Mark II and Mark III, the quality of those images began to suffer. That's why I purchased the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. And I've never regretted the purchase.
I do most of my work in dirty, dusty places in the rural parts of Montana photographing ranches, cowboys, agriculture and the like, and I'm very happy, that like its predecessor, this lens is weather sealed and is built with the typical Canon 'L' lens ruggedness. Montana photography means I do a lot of landscape photography, and I feel the color and contrast of this lens is much better than the first version. It has a snappy autofocus, and the lens is very lightweight.
For me, 16mm to 35mm is the perfect wide angle lens. And although it suffers a bit wide open at 16mm, it is beautiful at at almost every other aperture and focal length. I didn't like buying screw-on filters for this lens; it was an odd filter size and because of that filters were expensive. Other photographers might night find that to be much of a problem.
Here are some examples of photographs I made here in Montana using this lens to give you a feel for what I'm currently doing with this lens.
http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-1
http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-2
http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-3
http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-4
http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-5
http://toddklassy.com/montana-photography-6
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2012
|
|
Gunzorro
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 4572
|
|
Review Date: Sep 26, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazingly versatile lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft corners -- check for decentering.
|
|
|
One of my all time favorite and most-used Canon lenses.
There are reports of unit variation, and mine had slightly de-centered element, which was repaired by Canon under warranty, giving me a kick-ass lens. The center is very sharp at f/2.8, and corners are very good at f/8. So, if you aren't happy with IQ, send it to Canon -- you should expect the lens to perform well.
This is may preferred travel walk-around lens -- I can go all day without camera bag or additional lens.
Combined with the 28-300L, these two lenses can cover almost any assignment when you don't know what you are walking into, giving 16-300mm coverage.
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2012
|
|
dmac5dmark2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 10, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,590.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp in the center with excellent "L" "look" and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Really bad at f2.8 and 16mm
|
|
As a photojournalist, this is a dream lens. Its my workhorse professionally and for travel. It focuses fast on a 5D Mark II and its versatility is its strongest attribute. I can shoot a street scene wide and then zoom in for a portrait seconds later.
It offers great contrast and that "look" that is so hard to explain but that most of the "L" lenses exhibit. Good color rendition but not as stunning as the 135mm or other well regarded primes. I have the 70-200mm f4 as well and this lens is also not as good for obvious design reasons (wide angle vs tele).
My only real complaint with this lens are the horribly inconsistent corners/edges from shot to shot, especially at f2.8. This is probably due to curvature of field and slight focus errors by me. However, I hear rumours of poor quality control in production and after testing a half dozen of these I tend to agree. There is a wide amount of sample variation on this lens so shop around. I would not recommend buying this lens online. Try the lens out in person and view images at 100% before purchasing.
Shooting landscapes on a tripod with a shutter release between f11 and f16 produces acceptable edges and corners. Not really that much better than a good copy of the Canon 17-40 f4, which is a much better value and lighter. I'll add that the 14mm f2.8 Mark II blows this away (not even close!) but you'll pay several hundred dollars more for it, doesn't offer the same versatility, and you can't use filters on it.
As for street shooting, I find bokeh is poor and its a bit too mushy/distorted in the corners overall at 16mm, which is to be expected for this type of design I guess. Images look a bit better stopped down to about f4.
Photos look fantastic in the 25-35 range. Edges are better on landscapes, bokeh is more pleasing, and portraits really "pop" with great 3D clarity.
Overall its a great lens for multi-purpose use. Its not perfect (and I tend to feel like it should be for the money it costs to buy one) but its definitely an important go-to lens for a working professional.
Some of my work shot with this lens:
Pacific sea nettle http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7639173430/in/set-72157630894189870
16mm view of a beautiful beach http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7710694322/in/photostream
Old ladies in front of spectacular volcanic rock formations http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7692502964/in/photostream
A landscape that shows off the len's superb clarity
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7596558426/in/photostream/
One of Korea's famous diving grandmothers http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7183482169/in/photostream/
A portrait of a boy monk straight from the camera with no post processing http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7183482169/in/photostream/
Young boy at Buddhist birthday celebration http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7299494788/in/photostream/
Pretty women on a parade float http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7299568742/in/photostream/
Enter the Dragon http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmacs_photos/7299565844/in/photostream/
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012
|
|
Ulan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 101
|
|
Review Date: Jun 29, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Very convenient focal range. Good IS. Sharp enough even at f/4 especially in the centre. Satisfying contact and colors. Fast AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some vignetting at f/4 24mm.
|
|
|
Use this zoom with my new 5D mark II and am very satisfied. My copy is quite good. It's an excellent walk-around zoom and as sharp as my 17-55 mm f/2.8 on my 7D. A great tool for travel photography.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2012
|
|
aestiva
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 15, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, bokeh
|
|
I like this lens. It's sharp en has a very fast AF.
On 2.8 a little bit soft sometimes, but most of the time usefull.
The bokeh isn't as nice as the 24-70 2.8.
This lens is a very good upgrade from a 17-40. A lot sharper.
Most of the wideangle pictures on my site are made with this lens.
www.totaalfotografie.nl
|
|
|
May 15, 2012
|
|
ivofreriks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good sharpness at 24 mm and 35 mm and in the center at 16 mm
Fast AF
Seals against dust and water
|
|
Cons:
|
Moderate sharpness at 16 and 35 mm at f/2.8 and f/4.0
Chromatic aberration a bit too high
|
|
The Canon 16-35 mm II has a fast autofocus and the finish is of a high level. Optical wise, there is something to be desired, especially in the 16 mm position. The sharpness in corners is pretty low, the vignetting is clearly visible and the distortion is high. At 24 mm the resolution becomes higher. In addition, the vignetting and distortion become much lower. In some aspects the cheaper Tokina 16-28 mm performs better than the Canon 16-35 mm II.
See complete review @:
http://www.camerastuffreview.nl/en/component/content/article/12-objectieven/55-test-canon-16-35-mm28-l-mk2
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2012
|
|
Snopchenko
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2010
Location: Russia
Posts: 1800
|
|
Review Date: Jan 18, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
+ sharp + bright + fast and accurate AF + weather sealing
|
|
Cons:
|
none really
|
|
|
I only give this a "9" because it's slightly less sharp than the 70-200/2.8 IS which is not surprising. However I feel that 9 is still plenty. This lens has finally brought me the wider half of the Zoom Holy Duo (the other naturally being the 70-200). The only time this lens failed me was really my own fault: I dropped it and it became soft on the right side from the damage. Now, after being repaired, it's as good as ever.
Oh, and one more thing. A lot of people are complaining that lenses like this are too heavy for travelling and buy lightweight junk to replace it. For me, it's an ultimate travel lens because it's reliable and weather sealed. If you're going to a place you're pretty sure never to visit again in your life, the last thing you should be doing is trying to cheap out on photo gear, unless your true intention is to laze in the sun sipping mojito and not to take great pictures.
Regards...
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2012
|
|
jcsculpture
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Super fast AF, controlled distortion for an ultra-wide.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price.. only decently sharp at 2.8, not great at 35mm
|
|
I have put together a lens comparison test of the Canon 16 35 L II and the Tamron 17 35 2.8 4.0. I was in the market for quite a while looking for a lens which would satisfy this zoom range. I initially bought the Canon 16-35 2.8 L II, but was disappointed with the results. Not that it was bad, just for the price, it was just that it wasn't great. I was expecting more. So on a whim (had 30 days to return) I decided to try out the Tamron.
Summary;
The Tamron is very close and may even surpass the Canon in terms of sharpness when shot wide open especially at 35mm in which case, the Tamron definitely surpasses the Canon. Canon beats the Tamron in regards to distortion, but ever so slightly. AF is better with the Canon - slightly faster, not significantly. Vignetting about the same. Canon has better saturation and contrast.
I had a hard time actually accepting my own test. I really wanted to love the Canon. This was one of the first times I had done a lens comparison with a Canon L lens and a third party lens. The price difference between the two was so dramatic, that I assumed the image quality would be as well. To be honest, I was shocked. Since the test revealed how close they performed, I returned the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 L II and kept the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0. IMO, the Canon is not worth spending and extra $1,000.
For full review and sample pictures showing sharpness, distortion, vignetting, etc.. click on following link;
http://johncarnessali.com/lens-tests/2995
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2011
|
|
filip_makowski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 25, 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2011
|
|
Daniel Yee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 3, 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 23, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, good range, takes filters
|
|
Cons:
|
odd filter size
|
|
|
I was never happy with my 17-40L. The corners are mushy and they are never on good levels even with small aperture.
The 16-35 II however is a totally different beast! The corners are already sharp at f/2.8! Price is a bit steep though... twice of 17-40L.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2011
|
|
alexander65
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 3, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Middle was sharp, lightweight compared to 2,8
|
|
Cons:
|
Corners never sharp, big minus in architecture; Competitors do it better for even less money
|
|
|
Bought this lens 2 years ago and never was really happy.
The middle, as expected, is sharp, BUT on a fullframe body like the 5dMkII you quickly see the not so impressive corners and edges: they are soft, absolutely not sharp, even going at f8, where every lens should shine.
I accepted it or used it only on the 1D, being a crop and so cutting of the worst.
After trying my first alternative, non original gear in my curiosity I found the Tokina 16-28/2,8 and:
it beats the Canon easily.
Iīm very sorry for Canon and I`m no friend of writing something bad, but the 16-35/2,8II was a lens I avoided, because of getting a headache looking at the pictures.
(Sure, 28mm on the long end is less then the Canon, but before reaching this the IQ is far superior).
I sold it.
End of the story.
P.S.: I`m quite happy with all my other Canon- Lenses!
|
|
|
Aug 3, 2011
|
|
kevindar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1930
|
|
Review Date: Apr 30, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good color and contrast. excellent range. good stopped down, improved vignetting and corner sharpness compared to 1. takes filters. good star burst stopped down
|
|
Cons:
|
on the side end, corners at f11 are still not completely sharp. 82mm filter size.
|
|
|
I have shot many ultra wides on my 5D Mark II, often comparing them side by side. These include 16-35 I, 16-35 II, 17-40, Nikon 14-25, Samyang 14, and canon tse 24.
Compared to 17-40, it is slightly better micro contrast, a little less distortion on the wide end, and better corners on the wide end. compared the the nikon, which I also use with an adapter, the corners, exp on wide end are softer. they are close at f11, although nikon still has an advantage. also nikon has better microcontrast. On the down side, nikon is a lot more flare prone, which can really decrease contrast. also the nikon does not take filters. This lens sweet spot is 19-22, although its good the rest of the range also, and stopped down, give very good full frame performance, though always not spectacular. Its also my favorite indoors video lens, and a wonderful PJ lens. Over all, its a lot like the 5d2, very versatile, very good in many areas, but not spectacular.
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
116
|
326708
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
