User Lens Reviews Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM Mk II review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Perhaps my most versatile lens. Excellent quality!, Friday, 04 July 2008 Canon Digital EOS 40D Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF 1.4X II Extender
Report this review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
16-35mm Worth the Extra Money, Thursday, 03 July 2008 For those not needing the extra stop of light and plan to do outdoor landscape photography, the 17-40 will work just as well. If you want the extra stop of light or do indoor photography, the 16-35mm is better suited for you.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Sharp as a blade, Monday, 23 June 2008 It is absolutely fantastic. From its sharpness to its build, I can not fault this lens. It is a little heavy but it's nicely balanced on a 400D Camera body with battery grip. The price is very attractive on amazon, as you would see this lens go for around 20-30% more on ebay. Definitely recommend it if you are serious about your photography.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
As expected, Sunday, 08 June 2008
Report this review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
This Lens is worth the $$$, Sunday, 18 May 2008 It was a bit of an investment, but when you start seeing what you can shoot with it, you will be happy you did. If you don't want to spend all the $$$, the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens. This has also gotten some great reviews.
Report this review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
A wide angle to die for, Saturday, 17 May 2008
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II Wide Angle Zoom Lens, Monday, 12 May 2008
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
best canon wide angle zoom!, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 Of course, Canon can still work on the sharpness in the corners from 2.8-6.3, it's not perfect yet but it's really very very good and definitely worth its money!
Report this review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Modest improvement mostly for full frame users, Saturday, 05 January 2008 But the differences between the two versions are minor and in some instances irrelevant. If you don't shoot a full frame camera the soft edges don't appear in the photo. And flare is a minimal issue at most. It rarely appears and is easy to fix in Photoshop if it does. I would opt for the original if I didn't shoot full frame based on the price difference alone. My only problem with the original was when I had to shoot hand held. Sometimes you can't bring a tripod along which rules out shooting at f16 or 22 so I occasionally ended up with shots that were soft in some of the edges. The new lens will solve that. That is the only reason I decided to upgrade. I haven't used many other lenses in the same range so I can't compare quality with other makers but I'm not aware of anything reputed to be better. I have Canon primes as well as other Canon zooms and in actual use all are generally close in quality. I use the primes if possible when I plan to crop or enlarge a lot but I could still get by nicely with the zooms. So, if you shoot less than full frame or if price is an issue, get the original. If you shoot full frame but need maximum clarity in the center (portraits for example), test both versions first. If you shoot full frame and need maximum edge to edge clarity, go with the new lens.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Canon 16-35 mm F 2.8 II, Tuesday, 25 December 2007
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Low Profile Filters..., Wednesday, 19 December 2007 Other than that: just echoing what others have already said. Fantastic lens from 16-24, perfectly OK from 24-35. This lens is one of the three zooms us full-frame shooters should always have in the bag: 16-35 f2.8 II, either the 24-70 or 24-105 IS, and a 70-200 or 70-300. 1.6X crop camera users are better served by the 10-22 EF-S.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Not heavy, not big, not that expensive., Thursday, 13 December 2007 I am sorry if this is too much of a rant, I just don't get where peoples heads are. Focus on the image quality of this lens, not its size, weight and price. If the price is not for you, don't buy it. Can't complain about something if thats what you signed up for. If you bought this lens and had no complaint about it and kept it, who are you to complain about how much you paid for it? It was obviously worth it if you have no complaints, right?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Good lens , Tuesday, 11 December 2007 For a person that dosn't have my shaking problem would love this lens.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Awesome!!, Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
one of the best zoom lenses, Sunday, 21 October 2007 being L glass, quality is without a doubt there but so is the weight. some who have tested my camera have said its hard to shoot with especially on a small body like a 400D without a battery pack, but I got used to it very quickly and now don't even notice the weight. its worth taking into consideration though depending on how you carry your equipment. if you dont need the zoom, I have to mention the Canon 35mm 1.4, which is in a way the prime version of this lense. at a similar price level, its 1.4 aperture is just phenomenal for low light conditions.
Report this review
Results 1 - 15 of 22
|
Most Popular...
|





