Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
p.1 #1Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
For those that own this lens or has before was it worth owning?
Jun 22, 2026 at 09:14 PM
p.1 #2Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
I have the original 16-35/2.8, two of the f/2.8 II, and the 16-35/4 IS.
The only f/2.8 that is sharp is the III. The first version is especially bad in the corners at 16mm.
The f/4 IS is quite good and the only one I use. At the time I opted for it over the f/2.8 III due to the IS.
EBH
The only f/2.8 that is sharp is the III. The first version is especially bad in the corners at 16mm.
The f/4 IS is quite good and the only one I use. At the time I opted for it over the f/2.8 III due to the IS.
EBH
Jun 22, 2026 at 09:34 PM
p.1 #3Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
I recently was able to get a near mint copy of the version III lens at my local camera shop for about $950, which appears to be a pretty decent price at retail, and I’ve been quite pleased with it. It’s very good throughout the range. It’s probably the best overall DSLR ultrawide I’ve used. There are some newer mirrorless ultra wides that are a little better, but this one still holds up. The earlier versions, though, are probably not worth your time. The f/4 IS is quite good too though if you don’t need f/2.8.
Jun 22, 2026 at 10:50 PM
p.1 #4Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
Like with all lenses, the latest version is the sharpest and best contrast. You can get around this by closing down a stop or two which defeats the purpose for most of us buying fast lenses. I own the 16-35/2.8LIII and am happy with it, it's also the only zoom that I own.
Jun 23, 2026 at 08:57 AM
p.1 #5Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
Most lenses get better with later versions, but there are plenty of notable exceptions. In Canon EF the early IS lenses suffered like the 70-200/2.8 IS and 300/4 IS were optically worse in various ways than their predessors. Some people are not happy with the extreme distortion and CA corrections needed for RF lenses that degrade the IQ.
EBH
EBH
Jun 23, 2026 at 01:28 PM
p.1 #6Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
The original EF 16-35 f/2.8L was not a particularly good lens. It had some really nasty lens flare if the sun was even close to being in frame, and corner sharpness wasn't great. The 17-40 f/4L was better, greater contrast and much more resistant to flare.
I don't have any experience with the Mk III but as others are noting, it was quite good. Canon really stepped up its ultra-wide game since the original 16-35 EF lens.
I don't have any experience with the Mk III but as others are noting, it was quite good. Canon really stepped up its ultra-wide game since the original 16-35 EF lens.
Jun 23, 2026 at 02:00 PM
p.1 #7Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
I had the first two versions. Around f/8 there's barely any differences, but at that time I was mostly using the APS-H crop 1D bodies and wouldn't have seen the worst areas of performance in the corners. It's possible that's still evident at f/8 on FF. As others have noted, each newer version was better than the previous version. If you can swing it, look for the f/2.8 v3 or the f/4 IS versions. After the f/2.8 v2 I got the f/4 IS version and was very happy with it, but think newer RF glass is probably a bit better (if you're using the R system).
While the v2 was generally better than the v1, my copy of the v2 had some problems that Canon could never eliminate through servicing. Specifically it developed strong field curvature at the wide end and as a result had poor corner performance at wide apertures if the subject was along a flat plane and filled the frame. I think it was copy variation because the CPS loaners I got while it was in for servicing generally performed better and as expected.
You're probably buying one of these used. If so, be sure you are able to return it without penalty and test it thoroughly as soon as you get it. If you're using the R system, I'd strongly recommend considering the 16-28/2.8 or 14-35/4 instead of the older EF versions.
While the v2 was generally better than the v1, my copy of the v2 had some problems that Canon could never eliminate through servicing. Specifically it developed strong field curvature at the wide end and as a result had poor corner performance at wide apertures if the subject was along a flat plane and filled the frame. I think it was copy variation because the CPS loaners I got while it was in for servicing generally performed better and as expected.
You're probably buying one of these used. If so, be sure you are able to return it without penalty and test it thoroughly as soon as you get it. If you're using the R system, I'd strongly recommend considering the 16-28/2.8 or 14-35/4 instead of the older EF versions.
Jun 23, 2026 at 05:39 PM
p.1 #8Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
I had the EF 16–35mm f/2.8 II, which I mostly used on full frame, which would be soft in the corners for things like landscape but then often be magically sharp and contrasty across the frame at 16mm for things like street photography. Eventually I came to suspect that the cause was strong W-shaped field curvature. I took it to a narrow inner-city street with overhead electrical equipment (i.e., a 3D subject at moderate distances) and verified this was the case. It didn’t just curve forwards or backwards, it would curve one way partway across the frame and then curve the other way in the corners. So that explained why an off-centre subject could be sharp: it was at the crossing point!
I replaced it with the f/4 IS, which has no such problem. I am still using this lens on an adapter.
Considering the results of online tests I’ve seen, I think the RF 14–35mm f/4 IS is intended for landscape and the RF 15–35mm f/2.8 IS for reportage and extreme sports. Testers who made real-life landscapes found the f/4 sharp at 35mm, one who used a chart found it softer there (that would be due to subject distance). The f/2.8 might be a tiny bit sharper but for me the ridiculous 5 stop vignetting rules it out – yet it might not matter much for someone shooting extreme snow sports.
I replaced it with the f/4 IS, which has no such problem. I am still using this lens on an adapter.
Considering the results of online tests I’ve seen, I think the RF 14–35mm f/4 IS is intended for landscape and the RF 15–35mm f/2.8 IS for reportage and extreme sports. Testers who made real-life landscapes found the f/4 sharp at 35mm, one who used a chart found it softer there (that would be due to subject distance). The f/2.8 might be a tiny bit sharper but for me the ridiculous 5 stop vignetting rules it out – yet it might not matter much for someone shooting extreme snow sports.
Jun 23, 2026 at 08:36 PM
p.1 #9Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
Thank you Melcat, you confirmed my suspicions of the 16-35/2.8 II. I used to own it for a few years but got rid of it for pretty much the same reasons. I got the 16-35/4 IS instead, which I'm still using today after 11 years, now adapted to Nikon Z9 (as I no longer have any Canon bodies in the household anyway). Tho I'm thinking of getting back in the 16-35mm f/2.8 game by buying the Sony GM II lens to adapt. 
Jul 17, 2026 at 12:58 AM
|
p.1 #10Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
FWIW, I came across this video yesterday that compares the 16-35 III against the RF 15-35/2.8L, and optically, they are more or less identical in quality.
https://youtu.be/b_ukiAuf_HA
https://youtu.be/b_ukiAuf_HA
Jul 17, 2026 at 07:24 AM
p.1 #11Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
Always wondered that, im going for the f4 as well, have heard from a few people as well
Jul 23, 2026 at 09:02 PM
p.1 #12Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
The f/4 lens is good, probably the best Canon EF ultrawide? Certainly better than 17-40 or the first two 16-35mm f/2.8 versions. The first version of the 14mm prime was subpar, the second probably pretty good but exceedingly overpriced.
Jul 24, 2026 at 02:39 AM
p.1 #13Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
The f/4 lens is good, probably the best Canon EF ultrawide? Certainly better than 17-40 or the first two 16-35mm f/2.8 versions. The first version of the 14mm prime was subpar, the second probably pretty good but exceedingly overpriced.
I have the f/4 version, and I found it very good, but after playing with fisheyes (15FE, later 8-15L FE) I found it quite narrow,
so now I'm trying to find something wider than 16mm between fisheyes and wide end of 24-70L Mk2, I thought about 14L, but after reading many tests of EF 11-24L, I am eyeing that one.
The f/4 lens is good, probably the best Canon EF ultrawide? Certainly better than 17-40 or the first two 16-35mm f/2.8 versions. The first version of the 14mm prime was subpar, the second probably pretty good but exceedingly overpriced.
I have the f/4 version, and I found it very good, but after playing with fisheyes (15FE, later 8-15L FE) I found it quite narrow,
so now I'm trying to find something wider than 16mm between fisheyes and wide end of 24-70L Mk2, I thought about 14L, but after reading many tests of EF 11-24L, I am eyeing that one. Jul 24, 2026 at 03:17 AM
p.1 #14Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
MintMar wrote:
I have the f/4 version, and I found it very good, but after playing with fisheyes (15FE, later 8-15L FE) I found it quite narrow, so now I'm trying to find something wider than 16mm between fisheyes and wide end of 24-70L Mk2, I thought about 14L, but after reading many tests of EF 11-24L, I am eyeing that one.
As I am typing, CR is showing that Canon has a refurbished EF 11-24L for sale. Not sure how many copies they have or how long it'll be available, but worth checking out if you're serious.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote
The f/4 lens is good, probably the best Canon EF ultrawide? Certainly better than 17-40 or the first two 16-35mm f/2.8 versions. The first version of the 14mm prime was subpar, the second probably pretty good but exceedingly overpriced. so now I'm trying to find something wider than 16mm between fisheyes and wide end of 24-70L Mk2, I thought about 14L, but after reading many tests of EF 11-24L, I am eyeing that one. As I am typing, CR is showing that Canon has a refurbished EF 11-24L for sale. Not sure how many copies they have or how long it'll be available, but worth checking out if you're serious.
Jul 24, 2026 at 10:14 AM
p.1 #15Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
Tom_W wrote:
I have the f/4 version, and I found it very good, but after playing with fisheyes (15FE, later 8-15L FE) I found it quite narrow, so now I'm trying to find something wider than 16mm between fisheyes and wide end of 24-70L Mk2, I thought about 14L, but after reading many tests of EF 11-24L, I am eyeing that one.As I am typing, CR is showing that Canon has a refurbished EF 11-24L for sale. Not sure how many copies they have or how long it'll be available, but worth checking out if you're serious.
I'm in Europe, so I need to use other sources, fortunately, EF 11-24Ls are available. Nevertheless I'm still not entirely convinced, I saw great reviews and MTFs comparisions and then the Opticallimits not-a-very-positive review...
Nothing else is wider and I don't want to go the RF route yet, the EF-RF converters are still a firm part of my RF cameras
MintMar wrote
IlyaSnopchenko wrote
The f/4 lens is good, probably the best Canon EF ultrawide? Certainly better than 17-40 or the first two 16-35mm f/2.8 versions. The first version of the 14mm prime was subpar, the second probably pretty good but exceedingly overpriced. so now I'm trying to find something wider than 16mm between fisheyes and wide end of 24-70L Mk2, I thought about 14L, but after reading many tests of EF 11-24L, I am eyeing that one.I'm in Europe, so I need to use other sources, fortunately, EF 11-24Ls are available. Nevertheless I'm still not entirely convinced, I saw great reviews and MTFs comparisions and then the Opticallimits not-a-very-positive review...
Nothing else is wider and I don't want to go the RF route yet, the EF-RF converters are still a firm part of my RF cameras
Jul 24, 2026 at 10:52 AM
p.1 #16Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
One of the nicer aspects of a lens like the 11-24 EF is that it'll hold its value. So it can be tried and if it's determined that it isn't satisfactory, then you can resell it.
What would really help is if you have a store or seller that will let you try it on your own camera. See how those corners are. 11 is extremely wide on full frame.
I'm almost thinking about it myself. I mean, the 11-24 is a lens that came out prior to the use of very strong software correction. I mean, it can be corrected for distortions but it was not made with that as part of its design.
What would really help is if you have a store or seller that will let you try it on your own camera. See how those corners are. 11 is extremely wide on full frame.
I'm almost thinking about it myself. I mean, the 11-24 is a lens that came out prior to the use of very strong software correction. I mean, it can be corrected for distortions but it was not made with that as part of its design.
Jul 24, 2026 at 11:17 AM
p.1 #17Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
Tom_W wrote:
(...)
What would really help is if you have a store or seller that will let you try it on your own camera. See how those corners are. 11 is extremely wide on full frame.
It's not as much wide anymore if you get into fisheyes. As for myself I found out that if I use the FE in controlled way (and usually horizontally level), I can make astonishingly wide shot of the landscape where the deformation of the FE lens is "hidden" in the irregular shapes of the landscape itself, i.e. you as photograph viewer cannot say whether the beach was curved this way because it really was, or because FE lens curved it (or curved it more).
But sometimes it might be nice to have a rectilinear shot that can hold at least a candle to the fisheye shot: 15FE diagonal FOV is 180 degrees, 11-24L @11mm FOV is "only" 126 degrees. Both on FF.
I'm almost thinking about it myself. I mean, the 11-24 is a lens that came out prior to the use of very strong software correction. I mean, it can be corrected for distortions but it was not made with that as part of its design.
EF lenses designs still had to consider the film EOS use, this is why they're corrected in glass. RF allows firmware distortion/vignetting corrections and also AF below f/5.6 from low end to high end, so that's why you get ultra slow consumer lenses with heavy distortions on RF.
(...)
What would really help is if you have a store or seller that will let you try it on your own camera. See how those corners are. 11 is extremely wide on full frame.
It's not as much wide anymore if you get into fisheyes.
As for myself I found out that if I use the FE in controlled way (and usually horizontally level), I can make astonishingly wide shot of the landscape where the deformation of the FE lens is "hidden" in the irregular shapes of the landscape itself, i.e. you as photograph viewer cannot say whether the beach was curved this way because it really was, or because FE lens curved it (or curved it more). But sometimes it might be nice to have a rectilinear shot that can hold at least a candle to the fisheye shot: 15FE diagonal FOV is 180 degrees, 11-24L @11mm FOV is "only" 126 degrees. Both on FF.
I'm almost thinking about it myself. I mean, the 11-24 is a lens that came out prior to the use of very strong software correction. I mean, it can be corrected for distortions but it was not made with that as part of its design.
EF lenses designs still had to consider the film EOS use, this is why they're corrected in glass. RF allows firmware distortion/vignetting corrections and also AF below f/5.6 from low end to high end, so that's why you get ultra slow consumer lenses with heavy distortions on RF.
Jul 24, 2026 at 04:21 PM
p.1 #18Canon 16-35 EF f2.8
I owned a 17-35 f/2.8L, which had similar quality to the 16-35. I liked it. It’s got fuzzy corners, like most UWA lenses from the 80s-00s. The center was sharp and nice. I rarely concern myself with the actual sharpness of my lenses anymore (they’re all sharp enough for my purposes).
I, personally, liked the 17-35 f/2.8L over the 16-35 lenses because it’s relatively small & light, tougher than the 17-40 f/4L and does what I need it to.
I, personally, liked the 17-35 f/2.8L over the 16-35 lenses because it’s relatively small & light, tougher than the 17-40 f/4L and does what I need it to.
Aug 06, 2026 at 06:45 PM