Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?

[Harry Muff]

Umm... That's it really.




Please!! 

[bdunbar79]

I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[Harry Muff]

I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Thanks dude. Already seen that.


I just thought it would a good addition to the list of already reviewed gear by CR.




I've actually recently bought it and I'm not 100% convinced by it and wanted the CR take on it.

[bdunbar79]

I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Thanks dude. Already seen that.


I just thought it would a good addition to the list of already reviewed gear by CR.




I've actually recently bought it and I'm not 100% convinced by it and wanted the CR take on it.

Gotcha.  I have it, and I agree there are some problems, but there are some really good things too.  There's distortion (ends and barrel) and it's certainly not as sharp as the TS-17 and the 24L II, but I enjoy the flexibility.  I tested it and the 24-70L II at 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm, and the 24-70L II beats the crap out of its resolving power.  But if you need 16-24, it's better than the 17-40.

[Harry Muff]

Agreed.


It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise and don't seem that sharp.


I suppose I just need to learn how to use it after using a 100L constantly for months.

[neuroanatomist]

It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise...

Are suggesting the lens is causing the image noise?

[Harry Muff]

It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise...

Are suggesting the lens is causing the image noise?

I know what you're saying, Neuro, and I know that a lens can't cause noise. It's just not what I was expecting after dropping all that money on it.


It's been love/hate so far. I'll try to knock up some crops to show what I mean and see if it's just me expecting too much.

[neuroanatomist]

@ Harry Muff - I hear you.  I like the 16-35L II - it's a useful lens.  I wouldn't call it 'stellar' or 'excellent'. It's the best FF UWA zoom that Canon offers, so if you need a UWA zoom, that's where it's at.

[danski0224]

Umm... That's it really.




Please!! 

Just had to say awesome user name.

 

[Dylan777]

Canon needs to release mrk III or 14-24 that at least = to Nikon or better

[Axilrod]

The 16-35mm is a great lens overall, but definitely has it's flaws.  It's not that sharp wide open, but around f/4-f/5.6 it gets much better.  Also it's not that great in the middle, 16mm and 35mm are alright, but 24mm can look kinda rough.  It's the best Canon has in that range that's for sure, but use a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and you'll see how much better it could be.

[JVLphoto]

It's on my "to do" list.  I've actually never used it. Kind of scared to, since I own the 17-40 f/4 L and without a doubt I'll want to upgrade after trying it out 

[synthetiq]

Please let me know if I should create a new, separate post for this, but:

Reading through this thread has given me some concern.  The 16-35 2.8L II is on my list for my next lens purchase.  I want to cover the focal range at 2.8 (16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8 ) and I already have the 24-70.

The 16-35 would primarily be for landscape photography and night/sky exposures.  From reading this post, it makes it seem that the 16-35 2.8L II doesn't deserve the "L" when you look at results, especially compared to the 17-40 f4L.  Is this true? 

Can anyone recommend a good review that compares the 16-35 to the 17-40?  While the 1mm is doable, the extra light from a 2.8 would be missed.

Thanks for any opinions

[Harry Muff]

I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too.
The lens is rather good and deserving of its L title.

Here's one of mine from a couple of days ago:




Melissa Zebra by Marked Improvement Photo




Also, here's one of the threads discussing it and the EF17-40 f4L:

   EF 16-35 f2.8L Vs. EF 17-40 f4L Thread

[infared]

It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise...

Are suggesting the lens is causing the image noise?

I know what you're saying, Neuro, and I know that a lens can't cause noise. It's just not what I was expecting after dropping all that money on it.


It's been love/hate so far. I'll try to knock up some crops to show what I mean and see if it's just me expecting too much.

Neuro is on it, Harry. If you are going to grill this lens (WA Zooms Canon's weak point), you are going to have to step up to Canon or Zeiss Primes ( and choose carefully!), to get better IQ...... you are going to stay within this brand. It's just the way it is right now...Perhaps a 14-24 will come down the pike from Canon, but expect it to cost well over $2000. We shall see....