Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: matty lough  

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

Review Date: Aug 22, 2008 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 3 

Pros: Good build quality
Poor performance across a wide range of focal lengths and f-stops. Very expensive for what you do get.

This lens is supposed to take pictures at focal lengths from 16mm to 35mm. If we essentially take this to be 20 individual focal lengths, then only 8 of those are fully fit for purpose. Its an f2.8 lens, but at any focal length only becomes useful for picture taking from f8, and with the limitations of the physics f22 is not much use either. So essentially out of 7 f-stops, only 3 are useful, unless you always ensure you have only sky and other non-detail items in the corners. If you sell a lens with a maximum aperture of f2.8, then I can accept you might want to offer this to enhance a bright viewfinder image, but you would at least expect some image quality to start at f4. What I tend to do for landscapes (on a 1Ds 3) therefore is to shoot wider than I want and crop off the poor outer portions of the image. This is not good for a lens at this price level. I have kept my old Olympus Zuiko 21mm lens, which is sharp right to the very corners, OK its a prime, but its 30 years old! You can get reasonable performance at 21-28mm at f13, but thats about it. I would have much preferred to spend my 1100 on an 18-28mm f4 lens with decent performance across all the focal lengths, where what this lens does is give you a 21-28mm f8 lens. Poor performance again from Canon. I have now got a Zeiss 25mm lens, my 21mm Zuiko and will add a 18mm Zeiss as soon as I can get one. Sorry Canon, but you should get some lessons from Nikon with their 14-24 lens.