Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: Fjellfalck  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Fjellfalck to your Buddy List
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

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.
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. I’m 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.