| Review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Not heavy, not big, not that expensive., Thursday, 13 December 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

I am so sick of reviewers misleading the public on how BIG and HEAVY L lenses are. This is not the 100-400 (which is justifiably big and heavy). This lens comes in at 1.4lbs and my consumer 28-135 lens comes in at 1.2 - what do I get for me .2lbs? superior image quality, superior quality materials. Really now, if less than a quarter pound bothers you, get a P&S camera. Onto the subject of size, I was quite disappointed when I used this lens because it wasn't very big at all, much smaller than expected. I like having something to hold onto (I love my 70-200 and wish all lenses where built this way). And is it really that expensive? Let's put this in perspective, you get what you pay for. We aren't talking $10,000 here. A mid-grade consumer lens will run you close to $500, and this lens gives a bit over twice that. What do you get? Industry leading image quality, excellent build, as close to perfection as you will probably find for less than $10,000. Just like a 7 Series BMW is 3-4 times the cost of a VW Passat.

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?

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Good lens , Tuesday, 11 December 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		3.8
Sharpness		3.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		4.0

Good lens except an old person like me need Image stabilization. I was hopeing being 2.8 and a L lens it was fast enough to over come my shakes.
For a person that dosn't have my shaking problem would love this lens.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Awesome!!, Wednesday, 28 November 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

It took me a while to decide on spending the money on this lens. Being a amateur photographer, it was really hard to justify this. However, once I received the lens and had time to use it, I am very glad that I did. The picture quality is simply amazing! I put it on a Rebel XTI, and find it a great carrying lens, based on the 1.6 crop factor. Highly Recommended..

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

one of the best zoom lenses, Sunday, 21 October 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

the 16-35 is essentially one of the best, if not THE best, zoom lenses in its range. with the f/2.8 you'll get very good light in throughout the zoom range and very sharp pics even at the lowest aperture. on many lenses you need to go up a few steps from the lowest aperture to avoid softness but this one operates very well at all settings.

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.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Canon wide angle a must for any photojournalist, Wednesday, 15 August 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

Since most digital SLR cameras tend to squeeze the average wide-angle lens until it basically becomes useless in tight quarters, the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 goes a long way toward solving that problem. Even at 16mm, the lens performs admirably, and the auto-focus mechanism is fast, silent and flawless. Yes, it's expensive, but a couple of picture sales will pay for it.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Perfect service, quality product., Saturday, 11 August 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		4.5
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		5.0

I had no issues with this seller. The product was packaged extremely well and was shipped in a timely manner. Tracking information was provided. Will do business with this company again in the future.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Just What I Needed, Wednesday, 25 July 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		4.3
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		3.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		5.0

Everything you would expect from Canon L glass. Very bright, on the spot focusing, fast and I do so love that 2.8F. 16MM is a little 'too' distorated for my style of photography most of the time, but that is what you would expect from at 16mm on a 1.3x MF Sensor. Other than that, I have had nothing but good results from this lens.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Gave this as a gift......, Thursday, 07 June 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

I'm giving 5 stars because the gift recipent loves the lens. And I was very happy that even though there was a problem in shipping, everything was resolved quickly.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

It is a 16-20mm lens, Wednesday, 16 May 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		4.5
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

I fully agree with the first reviewer. This lens excels at 16-20mm range. For 24-35mm it is actually less sharp when compared with my 24-105 (but has less distort and vignetting).

I definiely want the lens to perform equally well in the entire zoom range. But if a compromise has to be made, the 16-20mm range is what I need it for. My primary lens is 24-105, which accounts for 70% of all my shots.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Better at 16, but goes soft after 24mm, Tuesday, 15 May 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		3.3
Sharpness		3.0
Build Quality		3.0
AF Speed		3.0
Value for Money		4.0

UPDATE: Since posting this review, I have done further experimentation and am coming to a conclusion (no new info from Canon thus far) that (in addition to this lens's gaussian factor) this new version is just more difficult for current camera bodies to focus, which is probably 70 percent of the problem that I'm seeing. Since this was released for the new 1DmIII camera body, we can hope that the 19 enhanced cross-type sensors will handle this lens better than current bodies. I am leaving the rest of the review as written, because the tradeoff against the long end is real, as is the gaussian effect beyond 24mm relative to the original version. Also because it accuratley reflects how others will encounter this same phenomenon. Based on this, I would up my star rating to 3.5 if they had decimals.... Also: Would like to clarify my remark below about it cleaning up the corners as advertised. I mean that remark to apply to the 16-20mm range only, because at 24mm I have a test shot showing a better corner from the original version I lens, which is to re-emphasize that 24mm is the point where the older lens takes over... END UPDATE

Canon has hyped this new lens as an improvment over the great original 16-35, but in reality it's not a net improvment at all. Rather, it is just a tradeoff... What they're not telling you is that, compared to the original version, this lens goes soft at focal lengths beyond 24mm, where they are near the same in quality. I acknowledge that the new lens DOES clean up the corners as advertised, but if you shoot people for a living like I do, be prepared for soft eyes and disappearing eye lashes looking back at you. In many common shots this lens cannot resolve eye lashes at near distances, where the old version can and does... If you hate seeing soft eyes in a slew of your professional pictures, you will find some consternation in this lens just as I have... I am not happy with the compromise at all... Everything else about the lens is what you expect from a Canon L, which is to say it has awesome build quality and it's heavy. I have already owned two copies of this lens and have shot and tested a third. They all have the same softness problem. It was apparently a deliberate design compromise, but Canon's support techs have not yet been brought up to speed on how to explain or position this to customers, at least not in my experience. I have frustrated them by asking this question on the phone repeatedly, and they can't answer it. They're starting to get mad when I call back... I did send my first one in for calibration. They found something to adjust, but it did not help.... Moral of the story: If you like your original version, DON'T sell it. You need BOTH. This new one will effectively be your 16-20mm, and the old one will be your 24-35mm... I think it's very sad needing to carry two of the same lens, but that's what this situation has come to. We definitely needed a fix at 16mm, and this one provides it. But it comes at the expense of messing up the 24-35 range where the original version was awesome and where it is still the king.... Others have pointed that you can sub the 24-70/2.8 into this range, and I agree, but at the expense of having to change lenses way more often and having to always have the 24-70 available.... I'm finding this new situation very iconvenient.... Personally, I'm just going to think of this as the super bulky and inconvenient 16mm prime that they should have built instead.... Oh, and final note: Canon continues to make the old version of the 70-200/2.8L despite having added the IS version. I think this 16-35 thing should be that way, too, because many people who do my type of work for a living will choose the sharpness of the original lens over the corner-CA-elimination factor of the newer lens. If I had to choose just one of these lenses, I would choose the OLD one, which I would rate at 4.5 stars versus this turkey. I think discontinuation of the original version at this point in time would be both unwarranted and mildly insane. Can you tell I like sharp pictures?

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Review, Saturday, 12 May 2007


Overall rating (weighted)		5.0
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

I owned a pretty good copy of the original 16-35 and this one is slightly sharper in the middle, but most definitely sharper along the edges. You notice it most with a full frame sensor camera like the 1DS of 5D.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

Most Popular...