 |
|
|
scott_scheetz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 31, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 130
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality, good price, great colors and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as the newer version or other f/2.8 zooms, CA, distortion, AF can be hit and miss, vignetting
|
|
Overall, this is a pretty good lens. Sharpness wide open isn't the greatest, especially in the corners. It takes a couple of stops for it to sharpen up across the frame (IE-extreme corners). There is noticeable CA, but is easily removed in post.
Colors and contrast are good and match the other L lenses like the 24-70L and the 70-200L. Flare is handled pretty well, similar to the 24-70L Mark 1.
Vignetting is heavy, and is still present at 16mm @ f/8, and is pretty bad wide open.
Build quality is pretty great-although a little plasticy feeling, and the lens is weather sealed, which is always nice.
AF is relatively quick and silent, but can be hit and miss (on both 1D and 5D series cameras). When in focus, things look great, but when out, it's bad.
Price is great as now there is the second version, the new 16-35mm f/4, and the 11-24mm f/4, which have all helped to push the price of the original 16-35mm f/2.8 down quite a bit.
Sample Images:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/18223894801/ (1DSII, 21mm @ f/2.8)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/18034824058/ (1DSII, 16mm @ f/2.8-Closest focusing distance)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/18222676755/ (1DSII, 19mm @ f/8)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/17748743735/ (1DSII, 16mm @ f/8)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/18096974639/ (1DSII, 16mm @ f/2.8)
|
|
 Jun 17, 2015
|
|
grizzlywon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 14, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 250
|
|
Review Date: Oct 4, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank. Awesome quite focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
None that you can really complain about with a super wide angle lens. Lightroom fixes most issues.
|
|
|
Having 2.8 helps a lot in low light. This is my main commercial lens for buildings. Awesome lens and can be had for around $900 used.
|
|
|
Oct 4, 2013
|
|
rater
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 26, 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 33
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide and good quality lens
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft and prone to flare.
|
|
|
This was my first L lens and I was very happy with it. Actually, during 7 years was one of my most used lenses on a cropped sensor camera.
Now that I have moved to full frame camera, the corners were a bit too soft for my taste so I sold it, but I already miss this nice L lens.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2013
|
|
Kevin Sherman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1045
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide wide wide. Sharp. Fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lots of distortion, good amount of vignetting.
|
|
|
Great value, the version II brought the price of the older version down. Was nice on the APS-C 1.6x crop 7D. Pretty sharp, shot mostly at f2.8 unless I was doing some architectural work. Fast, wide, creates some fun images.
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2012
|
|
studioaw
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 11, 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, IQ, Focal length, sharpness, light but well built, great walk about lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very soft around the edges at 2.8 on a full frame body!
|
|
|
This is one of my favourite lenses. Build quality is very good, along with IQ and versatility.
I've recently sold this lens as I needed the funds for dedicated portrait lens due to my changing photographic style. It was such a hard decision, and do miss it for some of it's unique qualities. I will defiantly buy this or the mark 2 version again when funds allow!
I used this lens on a full frame body, mainly for landscapes and photojournalist work. 16mm on a FF body is very wide and IMO one of it's best qualities. Some of the perspectives that you can capture are amazing and set it apart from the 24mm range of lenses.
Sharpness and contrast are great, especially when stepped down past 5.6. At lower apertures especially at 2.8 the outer sharpness, particulary in the corners is soft and a fair bit of detail is lost because of this.
This is not really a major negative point. I shoot alot of low light street photography so I often use 2.8. As long as your subjects are sharp the soft edges actualy enhance the image. Only dedicated landscape photographers may find this an issue.
This lens is one of the lightest L lenses that I've used. Really portable and great with a 5D or 1D body.
On the used Market you can pick these up relatively cheap and are great value for money. I highly recommend this lens.
Alex
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2011
|
|
krodger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Quick, accurate auto-focus, good contrast, good colour, nice bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This was my first Canon "L" series lens. I am using it now on a Canon 60D, with an APS-C sensor. So far, I am very pleased with the results. I can't wait to try it on a camera with a full frame sensor. It blows the other lenses I have out of the water, and this is now the lens I use most frequently. I love the sharpness and quickness of the autofocus. It is very good in low light, and the lack of IS is not missed. I am not an expert when it comes down to the technicalities of lenses, but there is some fuzziness in the corners apparent at large apertures. At the 16mm range of the lens, there is a lot of distortion, but this shows up in my other lens as well. I had compared this lens to the EF 35mm f/1.4 L lens, and thought I would get more use out of this lens. I am happy with my decision.
The manual for the lens specifies that it needs a filter to completely seal the lens. These tend to be expensive, but what do you expect when you need a 82mm filter size.
|
|
|
May 17, 2011
|
|
Todd Klassy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 290
|
|
Review Date: Sep 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Overall very sharp, great color rendition, & super fast--everything you would expect from a L-lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Corners are a little soft when used wide open (f/2.8), especially on extra large sensors (5D Mark II--but not so bad on 5D Mark I).
|
|
Overall a very good lens--my first L lens, which I have now owned for approximately than five years. I chose this lens because of its focal length range, maximum aperture, and focal length. I also like the fact that it uses a 77mm threaded filter.
Images are crisp and sharp, and colors are always wonderful. At 35mm is doesn't perform as well as the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, but you wouldn't expect it too since it is a zoom lens. Its performance at 35mm is still very good. Where it really shines is from 16mm to 24mm. It can get a little soft in the corners when shooting at f/2.8--especially at 16mm--when used on a full-frame camera with lots of megapixels (think 5D2).
I really like this lens and expect it to be part of my camera bag for a good while to come.
Here are a few examples of photographs I have taken with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/4655366525/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/2961779225/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/69688466/
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2010
|
|
Damon Brodie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Apr 26, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
77mm Filter Size
Fast
Bright
|
|
Cons:
|
not very sharp at edges - wide open
|
|
|
I bought this lens used, and deliberately over the mkII version for the 77mm filter size.
I already had the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8, so I liked the idea of having all of the lens be able to share the same Cokin mount. Combined with the price I paid for a mint condition used copy of this lens and that sealed the deal for me.
I've used this lens a lot, handheld indoors with my kids and for shooting video on the 5D2 and for some awesome perspective shots.
I used to own the 10-22mm Canon on my 40D this lens, while a lot heavier, feels more like it is built like a tank.
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010
|
|
Ric444
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 10, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 10, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp at f2.8, Very nice tones and contrats
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
What an amazing lens!
I own several L lenses, including the 24-70L, 135L, 70-200L.
However, this lens is becoming my favourite very quickly for the the following reasons:
- the 24-70 is too heavy for a walk-around lens,
- the 135L is too narrow and good for portraits mostly,
- the 70-200L also too narrow for most scenarios.
The 16-35 is just perfect size and weight for all day shooting at museams and streets.
I picked up this lens used for a very good price and in a like new condition. I keep this lens in my 5DII most of the time.
The sharpness is excellent, except a the edges at f2.8. But not a problem given that I have seen really bad wide angle lenses: I own a Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 as well. I won't say anything about it, other than the darkness make one appreciate the light even more.
Tones and contrast are excellent as well.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2010
|
|
zolbs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2009
Location: China
Posts: 19
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build, extra-wide, 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Is it worth all the cash?
|
|
|
I bought this lens about 3 months ago. To do so, I swapped some lenses around, including a 17-40.
The 16-35 has been great. Very pleased.
But at the same time, I just reviewed a number of my best shots from the 16-35 and the previous 17-40. Honestly, I can hardly tell any difference. Obviously it is a plus to have the extra two stops on the 16-35, particularly in low-light.. But I really question if it was worth the added cash?
I keep thinking, ONE 16-35 equals ...
- A 17-40 plus a 135L for portraits
- Or, a 24-70 2.8 and 85, 1.8 (just about)
I'm not knocking the 16-35.. Just wondering if it's worth the added cost.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2010
|
|
primeshot
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $830.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build and center sharpness. Fast focus and the best value on the used market.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft corners, but only at 2.8.
|
|
|
For the price I paid I got 16mm at f2.8 and "L" quality all around. This is one of the best deals on the used market. This lens is on my full frame camera most of the time.
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2009
|
|
James Wei
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast zoom with versatility
|
|
Cons:
|
Unsharp corners even stopping down
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009
|
|
Jess Edward
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 31, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1965
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
16mm, f2.8, fast focus, weather sealing, solid build
|
|
Cons:
|
slightly soft corners (although I havent compared this to the mk2 version) nothing that has ever actually ruined a photograph for me, just something I noticed once or twice.
|
|
|
I have had this lens for a while now. I got it second hand and I love it. I tend to use it quite often these days since I have been shooting a lot of hardcore shows.
I upgraded from the 17-40 f4 and I didnt think that extra 1mm would make that much of a difference but it really does. Quite often I find myself zooming it in ever so slightly so its not right at 16mm. It is nice to know that 16mm is available if I need it though.
I have found a few different times that the corners were a bit soft which is something I had read about this lens before I bought it. I havent lost any shots because of this so it really doesnt bother me that much.
The best part about this lens is that you can find it used for fairly cheap since the mk2 version has been out for a while now. I picked mine up for around $800CDN which is an amazing price.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009
|
|
LennartW
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 6, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 90
|
|
Review Date: Jan 15, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, Small, Fast, F2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Tends to have soft corners
|
|
|
As it is always: you get what you pay for.
And if you buy this lens, you know what you want and you get what you want.
On a documentary, this is the lens I would use straight out of the bag.
It is good for sports because it has the two key facts: F2.8 and a fast focus.
The IQ @ F2.8 is good between 20-35 and OK at 16.
Stopping down to F3.2 or F3.5 is absolutely usable for my needs and for the circumstances I am working under (bad light/no light).
If you want the perfect WW zoom, get a Nikon but this is by far the best WW zoom you can get for under 900$.
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2009
|
|
terminator
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 293
|
|
Review Date: Nov 20, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $635.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
build, 16mm, size, f/2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at 35mm
|
|
|
My copy is second hand. I noticed immediately that it is very soft at 35mm - softer than any of my other L zooms such as 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200L f/2.8 IS. Stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 does not help much.
Other than the softness, everything else about this lens is positive even though I am not a fan of wide angle.
I am thinking about upgrade to Mark II, but its 82mm and price tag really piss me off.
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008
|
|
SR777
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 9, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 499
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, colour rendition, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I bought this lens 2.5 years ago as a standard walk-around zoom for the 20D (1.6 crop). Since then, this lens is also my walk-around for the 1D2 (1.3 crop). The lens is sharp wide open (2.8) and gets much, much sharper when stopped down 1/3 stop. The colour rendition is great. The lens feels solid. I haven't found any reason to replace this with the 16-35 II.
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
139
|
367625
|
Jun 17, 2015
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
91% of reviewers
|
$1,256.48
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.62
|
7.77
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
