 |
|
|
highpixel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 19, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 252
|
|
Review Date: Apr 18, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great colors, fast accurate focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Big filter
|
|
Got this lens at a great price. I needed a WA lens for my wedding trip to Hawaii coming up. Very nice perspective on the 5DII. Well built as most L lenses are expected. Nice saturation of colors. This completes my three L lens set up from 16-35L II, 24-70L, and 70-200L II line up.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204295867302858&l=638081f559
|
|
 Apr 18, 2015
|
|
jonasflem
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2015
Location: Sweden
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,599.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
durable construction
|
|
Cons:
|
a bit blurry focus, 82mm filter, pricey
|
|
I have been using this for shooting stars and star trails and have been really happy.
A prime lens with a larger aperture might be more beneficial for astro photography, but using this for landscapes and other purposed I have been completely satisfied.
Great wide angle selections work well in her work. I find myself want to steal hers now, Just another Great L lens!
Example shot and another one
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015
|
|
aestiva
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 17, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 12, 2014
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
amazing build
fast af
weathersealing
color and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
a little soft compared to other Canon lenses
bokeh isn't as nice as the 24-70 2.8L II
ugly lenshood, but needed to protect the front of the lens
|
|
Only buy this lens if you have to. The 24 1.4L II of 24-70 2.8L II is a better choice! Those are a lot sharper.
I didn't use this lens a lot. A few pictures in my 2012 file on my page http://facebook.com/totaalfotografie are made with this lens.
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2014
|
|
Soulphoto2014
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 3, 2014
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
|
|
Pros:
|
none
|
|
Cons:
|
Extreme pricing, unsharp in the corners, for this price Canon should have sold corner to corner sharpness.
|
|
|
I'm really dissapointed with this lens, i'm glad I could sell it and get my money back!!!
Better options are :
-----------------------
Tokina 17 3.5 AT-X Pro (corner-corner sharp, light, cheap, out of production, only available on Ebay, a real hidden gem!)
Canon 16-35 f4L IS (newest UWA)
Tokina 16-28 2.8 AT-X Pro (corner-corner sharpness, but flare,heavy,no filters)
UWA's & Canon have always been a pita, not sharp corner to corner, overpriced,... so I had to look to the competitors and thanks to FredMiranda I discovered the value of Tokina!!!
It's a very professional but underestimated brand, marketing is very limited in some countries, they should expand their marketing. Most of their lenses are optically reaching perfection and built sturdy like a tank (no plastics!).
If you are doubting to buy this lens, save your money for a Tokina or if you have it and are dissapointed with the corners, sell it asap as the value will drop.
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2014
|
|
daryl.cheshire
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
awesome lens, can't fault it. Cannot find any 'softening' at the edges and works well at f/2.8
I like how the zoom element is small enough to move within the lens body so it doesn't extend like a telephoto zoom.
|
|
Cons:
|
bit expensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014
|
|
dkyeah
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 10, 2013
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 26, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good AF, quite sharp, internal zoom, smooth AF and zoom rings, weather sealed
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as good as Nikon 14-24 2.8, CA under some conditions
|
|
Since I bought this lens my 24-70 2.8 stays at my studio most of the time when I'm out shooting weddings. It's noticeably sharper than my 24-70 2.8 and slightly less imposant/heavy. Though it's built like a tank and weather sealed.
I hesitated with the 17-40 because of the price, well I don't regret buying this lens, especially as 2.8 can come in really handy when shooting inside.
If you want to see sample images, you can go to this link: http://quentindecaillet.com/blog/4659-photographe-couple-valais-aurelie-vitor-champex.html All of the pictures were shot either with the 16-35mm 2.8 II or the 85mm 1.2.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2014
|
|
Carles77
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatility, sunburst closed, high IQ on center, colors
|
|
Cons:
|
very bad at 30-35mm, soft corners, distortion, too big
|
|
|
This lens is must have for me no matter the negative aspects most of my photos are done with this lens so really nice one.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2014
|
|
jrobichaud
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1033
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8 and uses front filters
|
|
Cons:
|
poor IQ wider than 20mm
|
|
|
I am so disappointed in this lens! I have owned 3 different versions and all are unusable on the outer 25% wider than 20mm with groups of people. At no focal length or aperture can this lens compete with the 24-70mm 2.8 mk II. (or compete with the Tokina 16-28mm 2.8).
Please Canon, do something about this! Nikon's 14-24mm blows this away to the point that it makes more sense to give up AF and open aperture metering if edges are important.
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2014
|
|
Erik_J
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
|
|
Review Date: Oct 11, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
The zoom range, Colours and build, Takes filter
|
|
Cons:
|
Sarpness wide open and in the corners
|
|
|
It's a rather nice super wide zoom with a good range. But it could be a bit sharper in the corners and edges.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2013
|
|
vmirage
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2010
Location: N/A
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,475.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent focusing, Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Upgraded from a 24-105L and I was surprised at how much better the performance is with this lens. It focuses like a laser and quickly every time, whereas the 24-105 would search and miss very often especially in dimmer light. The build quality is also better and feels less plasticky and more solid.
I mostly do landscape work and unless I decide to spend $2k+ on some primes (like the 14mm) I don't think this lens will leave my camera for the next 2-5 years.
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2013
|
|
Lunchb0x8
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 19, 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 142
|
|
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
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 17, 2013
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 2777
|
|
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: 49
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 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 17, 2013
|
|
Todd Klassy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 290
|
|
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: 14586
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
126
|
389913
|
Apr 18, 2015
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
91% of reviewers
|
$1,493.19
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.73
|
7.97
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
