Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

[davidrf]

Hello,
 I have a 60D but I'm about to get a 6D, I shoot urbex and landscapes most of the times, so I like wide angle lenses. I've had a good Sigma 10-20 and now I have a great Canon 15-85.

Stepping up to full frame, the natural choice would be a Canon 16-35 L II, because i found the Sigma 12-24 too much soft. But.

But reading several opinions on the forums, I noticed that a lot of people say the 16-35 L II isn't worth that much money, and that it's not as sharp as an L lens should be. I'm sure it's sharper than a Sigma 12-24, but I'd like to have a serious sharpness betterment over the 15-85 I have right now.

What do you think? Thanks a lot!

[Drizzt321]

It's a super-wide zoom lens. All super-wide lenses tend to have softness issues in the corners, with the super-wide zooms having a bit more. It does get pretty good stopped down, which if you're doing landscapes you probably are stopping down anyway (most of the time). If you absolutely need corner sharpness, go for the Canon 17/24 TS-E, or Canon 14mm.

Another thing to think about, most people aren't pixel-peeping, and you're probably not examining the corners of most photos. People tend to look more towards the center area, although it can depend on the entire photo and subject matter.

Why not go ahead and rent the 16-35 and try it out? If you don't absolutely need f/2.8, the 17-40 is a pretty competent lens for the most part. It's f/4, and you do need to stop it down a bit for nearly anything, but it's significantly cheaper if you can live with it not being as good as the 16-35 v2.

[neuroanatomist]

Worth it to me...  While its not as sharp as my 24-70 II, 70-200 II, or TS-E 24 II, it's plenty sharp. The f/2.8 comes in handy in low light.

[Danielle]

I've used one on a 5d3 and 7d. I don't see the issue. It's a damn good lens which is very useful.

Try one if you need that focal length. It's a tough lens and its reasonably fast aperture wise. There's a reason the 16-35 mark ii is popular.

[Canon-F1]

as it´s not really better optically then the 17-40mm f4 it´s not worth it for me, as i don´t use f2.8 much in that focal length range.

above f5.6 i see no difference.

i have them both... but only because i bought the 16-35mm II first and then i needed a second lens for my other bodys.


http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=2

[RunAndGun]

I like it.  It was the third lens I bought when I purchased my first 5DMKII back in '08.  I bought the kit with the 24-105, got the 15mm fisheye a few days later(great lens), the original 70-200 2.8 L IS and then the 16-35 a few months later.  I haven't checked the price on it lately and I don't remember if there was a rebate going on when I bought mine, but If I was just buying my gear now, I'd get it.  If you're a W/A kind of guy, get it and start enjoying it.

[CharlieB]

I've got the 16-35ii, and its sharp enough.  You really have to consider what you're getting - 16mm is very wide, and zooming to 35mm too.

What I like, is it covers, and covers well.  Built in vignetting correction in the 5dii and 7d correct the falloff nicely.  There are sharper lenses out there, but to find one thats in that zoom range... nada, thats as good as it gets in the Canon world.  Edges are not horrible, but do clean up with stopping down to 5.6.   

Its my go-to lens when I shoot events with the 7d with its 25-50ish equiv.  That pretty much covers it for social events.

[Etienne]

The 16-35L II 2.8 is my most used lens. YMMV

It is great inside cars, trains, buses, planes, boats.
I think it is the best general purpose wide lens available for Canon.

btw ... a lot of amazing photojournalism shots have been taken with this lens.

[BL]

If I had to sell everything but 1 lens due to some financial tragedy, the 16-35 II would be my keeper.

Yes, it has optical shortcomings, yes it's a bit on the pricier side.  But once you understand its limitations, it's simply amazing.

Rent it along with the 17-40 and see what suits you.

[eml58]

I have it, had the Version 1 as well, I'm not that keen on the Lens, seldom use it anymore except for Underwater Photography where the Corner distortion no longer presents an issue.

Not as Sharp as other WA L Lenses such as the 24-70f/2.8 L II (Have never tried the 17-40), it's not a cheap Lens, so for that reason alone it's a disappointment to me, What I've done in the Last 12 Months is Buy a couple of Zeiss Lenses which I now use instead of the 16-35, Currently I own the Zeiss Distagon 15f/2.8 & 25f/2, for sharpness at these Ranges Canon have nothing to compare, at all, But, this isn't the cheapest way to get WA sharpness, but it does get you the near perfect WA Lenses for any occasion, with the only downside being No Auto Focus, which in Landscape is generally not an issue as you mostly Focus in Live View.

I might suggest getting a Prime WA like the Zeiss 15 then later when you have the Money, go to the 24-70f/2.8 II, two amazing Lenses.

Someone in an earlier Post suggested Renting first, if that's an option I would say this is always excellent advise, then you can Try before you buy, win win.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Since you have a 60D, don't even consider the 16-35L, get a 17-55 if you need f/2.8.   It is much better on FF than a crop.  The 17-40L is ok but the 17-55 beats it handily.  The 17-40L is best at small apertures.  If you can find a used one for under $500, its ok.
You mentioned having the 15-85.  Unless you need a AF adjustment, it should be just fine.

[RGF]

I often skip from from 24 (24-70) to 14.  I do occasionally use the 16-35 but often go as wide as I can - hence the tendency to go with the 14

[Meh]

Yes, it is worth every penny.  Fair comment above though that if you're only shooting stopped down anyway the 17-40 is cheaper.

[JonAustin]

I've had a 17-40 since the year they came out ... first on crop-sensor bodies, and now on full frame for the past 6 years.

My copy is satisfactorily sharp, and I'm very pleased with the purchase. It was my walk-around lens in my crop-sensor days, and doesn't get as much use now, but I would never part with it ... it's great for tight interiors and wide landscapes.

I've never been tempted to upgrade to either of the 16-35's.

[Dylan777]

Not GREAT and not bad

As an owner of 16-35 II, I'm ok with this lens. If you plan to shoot f8 - f11, the 17-40mm f4 might be a better choice in term of $.

If Canon comes out mark III or 12-24mm with IQ as good as Nikon or better, I'll drop this lens in heart beat.