The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is a great lens that just works as you would expect from Canon at this price The results during our tests again are what you would expect for a lens of the caliber "simply stunning". Auto focus was fast and hit the mark every time. This was an improvement on the lens it replaced, this lens was faster than its older brother and with a lower percentage of refocusing needed.
As with all lenses with a focal length as short as 16mm you get a little distortion on the edges (at 16mm). But this is only truly noticeable on shots with vertical straight edges. If you do find this tiny distortion to be an issue then you can always resolve this in Photoshop or you DSLR Canon software (I did not find it at issues, but some purists might).
Sharpness on this lens was excellent, as good as many of the top Canon zooms. For a short zoom, this is one of the best and certainly as good as the Canon 17-40mm L.
This lens is well built (again as you would expect from Canon at this price). With a large front element it can be quite a large lens on a small body such as a 400D.
If you like your short zooms then this in one to put on the list to consider buying.
Why should you care what I think?
My relationship with this item: Editor review
Conclusions at a glance
Would you recommend this Item: Undecided Pros: Sharp, build quality, very little fringing. Cons: Price, not a lot else.
Last updated: Wednesday, 27 February 2008
User Lens Reviews
Average user rating from: 20 user(s)
Overall rating (weighted)
4.5
Sharpness
4.7
Build Quality
4.4
AF Speed
4.5
Value for Money
4.5
Add new review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Sharp as a blade, Monday, 23 June 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
I purchased this lens based on a recommendation from a friend and other reviews I read.
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.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
As expected, Sunday, 08 June 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
Like all "L" lenses, it is rather heavy. But that is the inconvenience you have to cope with if you want to have a superior lens. My test shots ALL came out as anticipated, fine details, sensitivity in low light conditions, and great colors. No regrets.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
This Lens is worth the $$$, Sunday, 18 May 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
4.5
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
5.0
I use this lens with the Canon Mark III & Canon 40D. It was a Bit $$$ but worth every penny. I have uploaded some images to the amazon gallery that are from bright sunny days to hand held at night. I also posted a shot of the milky way if you look under the Canon Mark III images.
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.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
A wide angle to die for, Saturday, 17 May 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
3.5
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
3.0
I had been contemplating which wide angle zoom to buy for some time now, I photograph weddings occasionally and need it for indoor shots as well as for street photography. I had had the kit wide angle zoom once in weddings and the pictures were substandard. The 17-40 4.0 is cheaper for sure but I decided this lens will be in heavy use for years, probably decades, so why not go for the big Kahuna. It was worth every dollar. Picture quality is as good as one can wish for, even in extreme wide end and all the way opened to 2.8! The auto focus USM engine operates like ninja, with lightning speed, precision and quietness. Why only 4 stars you ask then? The one star is missing simply because there is no IS.
Was this review helpful to you?
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
Overall rating (weighted)
4.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
4.0
"The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II was able to produce a very good performance in most aspects. The center Resolution of the lens is exceptionally high regardless of the zoom and aperture settings. The border performance is lower specifically towards the extreme ends of the zoom range and at large aperture settings.... The build quality of the lens is great and it is a joy to use."
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
best canon wide angle zoom!, Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
Since I have the 16-35 II I hardly have any other lenses on my 5d. It's just amazing! It has been improved noticeably compared to the first version and it's great fun to use 16mm on full frame! 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!
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Modest improvement mostly for full frame users, Saturday, 05 January 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
I have owned both this and the original version. The new lens is better in the corners and flares less but the corners are still a little soft at f2.8 and you can get the lens to flare a little if you try. I haven't seen the loss of clarity above 20mm that others reported. Perhaps you would see a slight difference in eyelashes if you did a lot of portraits but this is probably not the best choice for a portrait lens. It is a somewhat better lens for shooting landscapes and other shots where edge to edge clarity is important.
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.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Canon 16-35 mm F 2.8 II, Tuesday, 25 December 2007
Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
Replaced my old Canon 16-35 mm lens and is considerable improvement when it comes to less distortion, flare and Vignetting. Only drawback is that it requires thin 88 mm filters that are expensive and when using one, is not possible to keep a filter cap in place since these filters have no front threat and use push-in cap types that do not stay in place.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Low Profile Filters..., Wednesday, 19 December 2007
Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
Quick word of advice: if you buy the suggested B&W haze filter ($125, gulp), be aware that you have to use the tupperware-like lens cap supplied with the filter; there aren't threads for the Canon lens cap. This is a feature, not a bug. And you should buy the filter: you really don't want a $1400 lens to get a scratch on the front element, do you?
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.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this 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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
