|
User Lens Reviews Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM Mk II review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Worth every penny..., Monday, 15 March 2010 This lens has been reviewed by many people and has been criticized as well as lauded for it's properties of build quality, brightness, sharpness, and the quality of color it transmits to the sensor (or film). My concern about sharpness in the corners was based on some critical reviews. But like so many reviews of so many lenses over the years, they're not telling the whole story. Simply put, in practical application of this lens, it is incredibly sharp and produces incredible images. It's a very handy package, though the lens hood is challenging to get into a pocket when you just want to carry the lens in the pouch and walk around with little but a camera and a lens or two. I have no regrets about purchasing this lens. It's everything I hoped it would be. I had considered buying the 17-40mm because of the savings and because of the same-size filter (77mm) to other lenses in the line. I imagine paying twice as much for this lens and then piling the filter on top of of that is going to put some people off. I am glad I waited and raised the money - the extra speed of the lens and extra angle of view at 16mm was well worth an extra week of selling film cameras and old lenses on that popular auction site... If you're trying to decide to buy this lens, I will not give you any information that will discourage you - in terms of technical quality this lens is unbeatable. If you don't need the speed, or don't expect to use the lens much, the savings on the 17-40 might be worth it. For me, I'm guessing this lens is going to be on my camera a bunch!
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Excellent lens for CINEMA as well as stills, makes, Tuesday, 09 March 2010 This lens is nice and fat, just like a cinema lens, and therein lies much of its power. The bigger glass allows more light to enter into the sensor, giving the camera more "information" to pack into the frame, whereas with cheap, small lenses, the sensor has to essentially blow up and extract a muddy image from a tiny window. Drop the contrast, sharpness, and saturation settings to zero, add some L-Series glass, and your DSLR video can compete with Genesis, Viper, and can even hold its own against Red, at 1/10th of the cost. This lens is perfect for the 7D's APS-C sensor. With the 5D, vignetting is a bit of an issue wide open. The focal range is perfect for walk-around footage, steadicam shots, and wide-angle effects shots. Consider this an essential range. If you want professional-quality video, you need to have L-Lenses. I no longer care about the cost...I am immediately replacing my lens lineup with L-Series glass. I can't believe I've run a photo/video business for 6 years without L lenses! Besides, compared to other lens manufacturers, L-Series lenses are actually quite cheap. I've had the benefit of comparing this with Panavision lenses and I can assure you, there's no significant difference in the results. NONE. This is a gold mine for independent filmmakers. Shell out the cash. AND be sure to add a few hundred more to the cost of this lens, in the form of high-quality filters! Protect your glass! And do it properly...there is no point in spending $1k+ on a lens if you're going to ruin it and put a piece of plexi-glass in front of it...just because you want to save $50. Get a $100 multi-coated (MRC) UV filter from B+W and just think of it as an insurance policy on your lens. Put on the filter the moment you take out your lens and never take it off. Happy shooting! You will love this baby.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
pretty good lens, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 i use it on a full frame 5D. the sharpness quality of this lens is nowhere near as good as prime lens and is the most noticeable bad aspect of this lens as you can easily tell on some images that the sharpness is not too good. the distortion can also be very noticeable and requires some skill in the angle and distance of the subject you are trying to shoot if you want to avoid the distortion. if you are too close, the distortion can be very ugly and drastic. it is definitely not ideal for a walkaround lens and the 24-70 would be better for full frame while the 17-55 would be a much better alternative. but if want a wide angle zoom lens, then this would be it.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Incredible lens!, Sunday, 14 February 2010
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Great lens!, Sunday, 31 January 2010
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Wow!!! Great lens for the 5dMark 2!!, Thursday, 07 January 2010
Report this review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Couldn't take it off my camera for days... I love , Wednesday, 06 January 2010 I use it on a Canon 5DMII and I've even done some great video shooting with it. When it's wide, it's very wide. I have not noticed the same softness that others are talking about. I've added a few photos that I shot with this to this page.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
The ulta wide to own, Monday, 07 December 2009
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Have something less than a 5D? Get this lens..., Sunday, 06 December 2009 -- the zoom range of this lens, combined with the 1.6 cropping factor on (many) cameras, means that the actual working range of the lens is pretty close to human perspective. That is, it looks like things look using your eyes :-) -- this particular lens is very fast at f/2.8, so low light situations are less painful. -- odd comment: the lens is a nice size for daily carrying. Nicely balances the camera, plenty of area to grip, but not too much that sticks out. Comfortable... which means you'll turn to it more. Lastly, I'm an advocate for engaging your subject whenever you can (though that's not always possible :-) With this as your daily carry lens, you'll be forced to walk right up to the people and things you're shooting. It forces you to engage, but still give you an opportunity to frame the shot with a lot of flexibility, since the zoom is pretty wide.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Great Wide angle Lens for Landscape or Low light S, Wednesday, 02 December 2009 Thanks
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
What's in the box from Amazon!, Wednesday, 14 October 2009 First, the lens! 16-35mm of pure luxury mojo! Its big and beautiful all the girls will Envy you! I'm talking big! 82mm! Second, the standard rear lens cap. Third, a very nice leathery pouch with draw strings. The bottom is rounded and has a thicker leather part to better to protect your beast! Fourth, a lens cap that can choke a horse and yes its my first expensive lens so of course its lot bigger than my starter lens. That is only 58mm a huge difference! and last the Canon EW-88 Hood. It has a USA warranty card and with Amazon Prime shipping you'll get it nextday for sure for just 3.99. Its like 80 bucks a year to be a member and I piss that away just breathing lol. Anything order from Amazon as the seller is pretty much guaranteed overnight if you order it that way. All others beware of 1-5 day processing times even if you order it nextday it will take days! I learned my lesson hopefully you too! I was not sure how this was going to turn out but I'm really happy with it! PIC EXAMPLE. If your sitting at your computer right now and you take a picture of your computer screen from about 8 inches away, you'll get the whole screen! Thats how wide of an angle it is! and I got a 24" computer screen how crazy is that from 8 inches? Now try this with your camera at home using a starter lens like the Canon EF 28-105mm 1:4-5.6 USM and see what happens, not even close! So again buying this here was the best price and its the same apples to apples if you where buying somewhere else! So now you know
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
I LOVE THIS LENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, Sunday, 11 October 2009 The Filters are very expensive for this lens, but if you make the jump to pick up the lens, youd drop any penny on protecting the glass on this baby. I've owned this lens a little over 6 months, and it has treated me very well, never failed me, and i would truely recommend this lens to any photographer looking into Wide angle lens.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Phenomenal WA zoom - best on the planet!, Saturday, 03 October 2009
Report this review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Does exactly what its supposed to...a great UWA Zo, Wednesday, 30 September 2009 Yes, this lens exhibits some corner softness and light fall off at the wide end and/or at f2.8, however this starts to clear up nicely even as low as f/4 and is gone by f/8. By comparison, if you really want an eye opener, look at the vignetting on the 17-40 wide open (f/4) - two thirds of the image is dark with only a small central spot unaffected (incidentally, those that post that the 17-40 suffers no corner vignetting are probably shooting JPEG and not examining the RAW image). Contrast this to the 16-35 wide open at f/2.8 where only the extreme edges and corners are dark. Same with corner softness, it does exist at f/2.8 but clears up nicely by f/8. In all cases, if you shoot this lens at the same settings as the 17-40, it outperforms its smaller cousin in all aspects (and the 17-40 an excellent lens in its own right). The 16-35 is more than just a 17-40 that goes to f/2.8, it is a significant improvement at all apertures and focal lengths. I did some extensive testing with filters and found, contrary to claims in other reviews, no detectible difference in vignetting between a slim or regular UV filter at the 16mm wide end. Maybe there is a slight difference that some purists can see, but for the life of me I can't tell the difference, so I use a regular thickness filter for the convenience of being able to use the normal dust cap. The 82mm filter size is also often cited as a point of criticism. Yes, 82mm filters are larger and more expensive, but that's the price you pay for a lens with these specifications. At least this lens will accept filters, try that with the Nikon. Finally, I've also heard criticism that this lens starts to go soft above 24mm, but I personally haven't seen any evidence of this either. Maybe those are bad copy issues again? But mine is perfectly sharp (stunningly sharp in the center) throughout the entire range. In short, if you absolutely must have a UWA Zoom that has razor sharp corners at f/2.8, you're going to need to go to other extreme measures such as the Nikon 14-24 or maybe a Zeiss, but then you've got all of the manual focus/exposure issues to deal with. In most real world applications at f/8 to f/16, this lens easily holds it's own against the Nikon 14-24 and definitely edges out the 17-40. In my experience, if I am shooting at f/2.8, I'm likely trying to blur the background anyway, so why would I care if the corners are soft? And if shooting in low light I can't notice the vignetting in the corners either. In any case, it's easily corrected in DPP anyway.
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, Sunday, 27 September 2009 this lens is very solid and i see no problems with it. it they could incorporate the IS system, that would be amazing, but also very costly. other than that, i have no cons.
Report this review
Results 1 - 15 of 50
|


