Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM views

[myloplex]

Thinking of getting this lens.

Money aside, is it an overrated, under-performer?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1

View, Comments From real users pls.

[glennyong]

Originally Posted by myloplex Thinking of getting this lens. Money aside, is it an overrated, under-performer? http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1 View, Comments From real users pls.

have used it for a while....

so far.. its a tack sharp lens for me... a tad faster den the mk1 version.

no qualms about it.

happy user.

highly recommended.

[coffee3in1]

Makes hobbits in low light..

To me, it's a under-utilised lens, same as the 15mm fisheye.

[Headshotzx]

Hi, I regularly borrow this lens from my friend when I need to shoot in low-light.

I personally believe that it really under performs. Even on my 400D, I can see that the 17-40L trumps the 16-35L.

A picture speaks a thousand words. Look at the following (taken by my friend, I'm the only dude with the T-shirt xD)



That was stopped down to about f/8 or f/11 I believe. Center sharpness is okay, but the problem comes when it's at 16mm.. Corner or even side sharpness isn't good, at all. Distortion makes it particularly bad. The above was taken on a 400D, a 1.6crop camera. The corners are that bad already, what about FF cameras?

For half the price, the 17-40L certainly is the better lens if you can afford f/4. If not, I'd recommend the 17-55IS (even though it's not L series or FF compatible) or the 24-70L (if you use 1.3crop or FF cams).

[glennyong]

if comparing 2470L and 1635L, i would go for 2470L.

but all in all... under perform or not.. i guess its all up to the user himself/herself.

but afterall... it all boils down to the purpose of the purchase of this lens...

[glennyong]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx Hi, I regularly borrow this lens from my friend when I need to shoot in low-light. I personally believe that it really under performs. Even on my 400D, I can see that the 17-40L trumps the 16-35L. A picture speaks a thousand words. Look at the following (taken by my friend, I'm the only dude with the T-shirt xD) That was stopped down to about f/8 or f/11 I believe. Center sharpness is okay, but the problem comes when it's at 16mm.. Corner or even side sharpness isn't good, at all. Distortion makes it particularly bad. The above was taken on a 400D, a 1.6crop camera. The corners are that bad already, what about FF cameras? For half the price, the 17-40L certainly is the better lens if you can afford f/4. If not, I'd recommend the 17-55IS (even though it's not L series or FF compatible) or the 24-70L (if you use 1.3crop or FF cams).

i guess u need to shoot mre to understand what this lens can do....

each individual shooting style is different.

for me. i know the lens is serving me perfectly well... corner to corner sharp.

[Headshotzx]

Originally Posted by glennyong i guess u need to shoot mre to understand what this lens can do.... each individual shooting style is different. for me. i know the lens is serving me perfectly well... corner to corner sharp.

I don't see why I would need to shoot more to understand the lens. I mean, I put the lens on, and I take the picture with no technical errors. I see barrel distortion, and I see that my side sharpness is quite bad when compared to center sharpness. I fully understand that each user's mileage may vary, but from my personal experience, this lens is flawed.

I understand however, that to combat the flaw of barrel distortion, the photographer should've stepped back bout 3 meters and zoomed in to about 24mm. But you see, then you'd have to combat one of the flaws of the lens. The lens should work for you, and not have you conform to it. My 17mm would've definitely done batter in this case, for example, and so would a 17-55IS.

Just out of curiosity, Glenn, what camera are you using?

For the money spent on the 16-35L, I would definitely suggest getting a 17-55IS + another lens of your choice (85mm, perhaps? fits in the price range) or a 24-70L (topup, but worth it).

Cheers
Zexun

[LeaderXXX]

Happy with it so far,sharp and fast after calibrated by cs.

[StrifeYun]

feel its faster in focusing. sharper. got extra $$ then get, or you want more "boke" ....
for low light .... 2.8 helps but i do not find it enough (get a flast)

2 cents thoughts.

but remember ... 82mm cannot share filter... haizzz waste even more $$ haha

[hazmee]

I can only chuckle whenever people complain about distortion on a wide angle lens. LOL! Find me one super wide angle lens on the 135 format that doesnt have distortion.

The 16-35 II is an improvement over the previous version. For all you pixel peepers and hard to please folks, read more about it here: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon...1635ii_a1.html

[marios_pittas]

Originally Posted by hazmee I can only chuckle whenever people complain about distortion on a wide angle lens. LOL! Find me one super wide angle lens on the 135 format that doesnt have distortion.

I totally agree with you. Assuming there was space furher behind for the photog to move back, in my humble opinion, I would have moved back and zoom-ed to 28mm or there abouts in order to remove the obvious distortion exhibited (and which most super wides would have at that focal length).

Not a fault of the specfic Canon lens (or this specific sample) or of the format as you correctly said (and again, I say that I agree with you, whether cropped or nor sensor, film or digital, distortion at that focal length is to be expected).

But if I was the last 3 people wide at the left or right end of the photo, I would have felt disappointed, slanted and distorted.. Just my opinion.

[skagen]

Well.... I don't think a wide lens is a good choice to shoot group photo like the above, the reason is exactly because of the barrel distortion you will have at the edges... or other option if you have to use the lens is to re-arrange the group formation so you don't have person at the very edge of your frame.....

[lightning]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx I don't see why I would need to shoot more to understand the lens. I mean, I put the lens on, and I take the picture with no technical errors. I see barrel distortion, and I see that my side sharpness is quite bad when compared to center sharpness. I fully understand that each user's mileage may vary, but from my personal experience, this lens is flawed. I understand however, that to combat the flaw of barrel distortion, the photographer should've stepped back bout 3 meters and zoomed in to about 24mm. But you see, then you'd have to combat one of the flaws of the lens. The lens should work for you, and not have you conform to it. My 17mm would've definitely done batter in this case, for example, and so would a 17-55IS. Just out of curiosity, Glenn, what camera are you using? For the money spent on the 16-35L, I would definitely suggest getting a 17-55IS + another lens of your choice (85mm, perhaps? fits in the price range) or a 24-70L (topup, but worth it). Cheers Zexun

What you have just said shows that you have not really gotten to know this lens well enough. Buy one and sleep with it and shoot it for the next 20000 frames (without bursting), you will understand the lens and it will shine. Use the right lens for the right purposes. So far I have absolutely no issue with this lens. Be it on FF or 1Dm3.

[Headshotzx]

Hm, I fully understand the opinions of you guys, but lets compare the 17-40L and 16-35L. The 17-40L at 17mm has way less distortions than the 16-35L at 16mm (or 17mm for that matter) on the same body. Doesn't that mean that the 16-35L has an outstanding flaw in the design, 2.8 or not?

If you would compare this to the recent 14-24mm over from Nikon, the Nikon most definitely trumps it from 18-24mm. But in the Canon ring, bang-per-buck, the 17-40L is better at what both lenses do similarly, that is f/4, 17-35mm. If you need f/2.8, go for it, but understand that it has it's weaknesses.

I'm not saying that the 16-35L is totally bad. For the premium we pay over the 17-40L, I'd expect it to perform better. Take for example, the 70-200 series. 2.8IS wide open still loses out to the f/4IS, but once the 2.8IS stopped down to f/4, the sharpness is almost the same. This isn't the case for the 16-35L and 17-40L comparison.

Regarding the photograph, I already said that the photographer wasn't well versed with using the lens (he had only borrowed it once) and so I told him about how to take group shots with the UWA 16-35L.

EDIT: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08...gon_t_21mm.asp hehh hehh..

Cheers
Zexun

[SianZronG]

Honest Opinion,

Use to use the 17-55 2.8IS, now i've got the 16-35, no way i'm going back. Its just great images and colours, i can't leave home without it, until maybe i get the 24 1.4 =D

as for the 17-40, have to say the mkII of the 16-35 has really caught up with superb MTF charts and minimized distortions.

[Kit]

Most of the time, when people talk about distortions on wide lenses they are not precise enough or they themselves are confused with the various types of distortions that lenses can produce.

If its the perspective distortion that we are talking about, then really forget about wide angles. They all do that. If its barrel distortion, I can't see in anyway that group shot is a competent gauge as well. That said, I'd be pretty shocked if 16-35 II has more curvilinear distortions than the 17-40 because the latter is an absolute stinker in that department.

[wanzw]

is illegal for me to go for assignments without bringing a 1635 out. enough said.

[Jix]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx Hi, I regularly borrow this lens from my friend when I need to shoot in low-light. I personally believe that it really under performs. Even on my 400D, I can see that the 17-40L trumps the 16-35L. A picture speaks a thousand words. Look at the following (taken by my friend, I'm the only dude with the T-shirt xD) That was stopped down to about f/8 or f/11 I believe. Center sharpness is okay, but the problem comes when it's at 16mm.. Corner or even side sharpness isn't good, at all. Distortion makes it particularly bad. The above was taken on a 400D, a 1.6crop camera. The corners are that bad already, what about FF cameras? For half the price, the 17-40L certainly is the better lens if you can afford f/4. If not, I'd recommend the 17-55IS (even though it's not L series or FF compatible) or the 24-70L (if you use 1.3crop or FF cams).

distortion? *couch* maybe youre not using it properly.

as what kit mentioned, it's the perspective that causes the distortion, unless there is a problem with the lens. but basing on the pic, I would say it's the perspective and not the lens.

[Neo]

Having used both, I'll add my two cents. The photo posted is not a good example of distortion within a lens, as it showcases distortion induced by all retrofocus wide-angle lenses. I'm not saying the 16-35mm II is zero distortion, but the results are stunning to say the least. I never leave home without it (like most other owners of this lens) - it is that good!