Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
See it at Amazon.com for $2,300.00Average Customer Rating
(4.5 out of 5)
Amazon Customer Reviews
Most Helpful First | Newest First
(3 out of 5)Better at 16, but goes soft after 24mm
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?
(4 out of 5)It is a 16-20mm lens
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.
(5 out of 5)Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Review
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.
(5 out of 5)Modest improvement mostly for full frame users
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.
(5 out of 5)Low Profile Filters...
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.