September 15, 2014, 09:14:26 PM

Author Topic: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?  (Read 11508 times)

replay0

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2013, 12:46:07 AM »
I've never really been impressed with my 16-35 II, and rarely use it. It's not bad, but it's not good either. I ended up falling back on my 24-70 I most of the time, and now that I have the 24-70 II (sold ver. I), I just don't see the value of the 16-35 II. To make up for the loss of a slightly wider angle, I sometimes just stitch photos together from my 24-70 II for a wider pano look.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2013, 12:46:07 AM »

cervantes

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
    • Focrates
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2013, 01:33:10 AM »
The 16-35II is not a very spectacular lens - it's not as sharp as other L's (unless you stop down to f11) and you need some creativity and skill to make cool shots with it.

But a couple of days ago there was a post "If you could have just three lenses what would they be?" and surprisingly the 16-35 was on nearly everyone's list (including mine) so I guess it's doing something right.

It is simply the the ultra-wide of choice.

Subtas

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2013, 03:05:28 AM »
You can consider the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 .

killswitch

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2013, 03:41:40 AM »
I recently bought the Canon 16-35 II, and had the opportunity to run it through it's paces. My 16-35 II is sharp in the center when stopped down, and I wish the mid frame was as sharp or at least close to the center sharpness. But it's still pretty good stopped down. Corners did not bother me much, but that's just me. However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and  onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person. I also felt that my copy of the lens performed better at 35mm than at 16mm. By better I mean, images felt much crisper at 35mm. Would I drop this lens for something else? Yes, only if a 16-35 MKIII with performance as good as the recent 24-70 MKII is ever made. But that's just wishful thinking. If sunstars aren't your thing and you have no use of f2.8, then go for 17-40. My 2 cents.

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2013, 04:09:20 AM »
I had the 10-22 canon on crop sensors...loved it

thren got the 16-35 II when I moved to 5D2...
\
loved it.. it was very good...still have it with 5D3...
but I got the 14L II and love it more..

the 16-35 is still useful when I have a small kit ...
like a 16-35 and a 70-200 ...or maybe just with a 100L macro..
the zoom covers toward normal..

but for me if I want the best..I use the 14L II..
fits nicely below the 24-105 (or 24-70 II) ...or just a great prime like the 35 sigma...maybe add a 135 f2L...

14mm is wonderful..
I guess 50% more for that one..

the 16-35 actually has lower chromatics/fringing than the 14L II...this is all correctable
14L sharper...over all...and  to the edges...for sure

is 16-35 worth it ....yes...pay attention to your copy to make sure it is good...
but...it IS worth it - IMO

TOM



Canon-F1

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2013, 04:42:07 AM »
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.

huh?
that reads as if you advice to use the 17-55mm f2.8 on a FF body.

from a image quality point of view the 16-35mm performs better on a Crop then on a FF body.
because the not so good borders are out of the image circle on a Crop body.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 04:47:28 AM by Canon-F1 »
6D, 5D MK2, 7D, 550D... a lot of Glass.

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2013, 04:52:10 AM »
I've used my 16-35IIL so much, it's one of my heavy use lenses. It's the only lens I've ever had to replace the front element on. I've had a number of ultra wides over the years and the 16-35IIL is the best of the lot. While it's not a modern lens and could do with some serious upgrading, it's still the most versatile ultra wide available on the Canon mount.
Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 dii. A sharp lens, but flare control was apalling and the distortion was the worst I've ever seen in a lens.
Sigma 12-24 HSM, an odd lens. Hard to put filters and mine has awful corners with any aperture bigger than f11....but that angle of view is amazing and it's the most corrected lens for angular distortion I've ever seen.
Canon 17-40L, it's a lovely lens. Relativly cheap, sharp enough and very versatile. I only sold mine because I needed the f2.8 aperture.
Canon ef 16-35IIL, while far from perfect it's the most versatile ultra wide lens there is. Great colours and contrast, nice sunstars, epic build.
Once upon a time ultra wides were the re-mit of pro photographers and considered a niche lens. These days, everyone's got one...but one questions why? Many sit on shelves gathering dust because the 24mm end on most zooms is usually wide enough for most uses. I think this lens get a lot of unfair critisim. My advise is to stop looking for optical perfection and get out there and use it.








canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2013, 04:52:10 AM »

davidrf

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2013, 03:27:39 PM »
Thanks a lot for all the kind answers... I think I'll try to go for a good used 16-35L II, if I can find one! Right now I'd prefer not to spend over 1000$ (or €, in my case).

But maybe I will give a look to the Tokina 16-28 too... I didn't know anything about this lens, and the reviews seem very favourable.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 03:30:14 PM by davidrf »
Ekam Sat

Canon 6D - Canon 16-35 L II - Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L - Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 - Samyang 14 f/2.8

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2013, 04:14:56 PM »
I've used my 16-35IIL so much, it's one of my heavy use lenses. It's the only lens I've ever had to replace the front element on. I've had a number of ultra wides over the years and the 16-35IIL is the best of the lot. While it's not a modern lens and could do with some serious upgrading, it's still the most versatile ultra wide available on the Canon mount.
Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 dii. A sharp lens, but flare control was apalling and the distortion was the worst I've ever seen in a lens.
Sigma 12-24 HSM, an odd lens. Hard to put filters and mine has awful corners with any aperture bigger than f11....but that angle of view is amazing and it's the most corrected lens for angular distortion I've ever seen.
Canon 17-40L, it's a lovely lens. Relativly cheap, sharp enough and very versatile. I only sold mine because I needed the f2.8 aperture.
Canon ef 16-35IIL, while far from perfect it's the most versatile ultra wide lens there is. Great colours and contrast, nice sunstars, epic build.
Once upon a time ultra wides were the re-mit of pro photographers and considered a niche lens. These days, everyone's got one...but one questions why? Many sit on shelves gathering dust because the 24mm end on most zooms is usually wide enough for most uses. I think this lens get a lot of unfair critisim. My advise is to stop looking for optical perfection and get out there and use it.









Nice pictures.
6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 17-40L, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 85 1.8, 135L, Sigma 35 1.4, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M

serendipidy

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1308
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2013, 05:18:11 PM »
I've used my 16-35IIL so much, it's one of my heavy use lenses. It's the only lens I've ever had to replace the front element on. I've had a number of ultra wides over the years and the 16-35IIL is the best of the lot. While it's not a modern lens and could do with some serious upgrading, it's still the most versatile ultra wide available on the Canon mount.
Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 dii. A sharp lens, but flare control was apalling and the distortion was the worst I've ever seen in a lens.
Sigma 12-24 HSM, an odd lens. Hard to put filters and mine has awful corners with any aperture bigger than f11....but that angle of view is amazing and it's the most corrected lens for angular distortion I've ever seen.
Canon 17-40L, it's a lovely lens. Relativly cheap, sharp enough and very versatile. I only sold mine because I needed the f2.8 aperture.
Canon ef 16-35IIL, while far from perfect it's the most versatile ultra wide lens there is. Great colours and contrast, nice sunstars, epic build.
Once upon a time ultra wides were the re-mit of pro photographers and considered a niche lens. These days, everyone's got one...but one questions why? Many sit on shelves gathering dust because the 24mm end on most zooms is usually wide enough for most uses. I think this lens get a lot of unfair critisim. My advise is to stop looking for optical perfection and get out there and use it.









Simply gorgeous! :)
EOS 5D miii, EOS 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 100-400mmL IS

Invertalon

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2013, 06:45:21 PM »
I have a hard time when I think of buying this lens because the 17-40 is half the price and the same IQ/build... Just with f/4 vs. f/2.8... For an UWA, I stop them down anyway, so the f/2.8 although nice at times, is not worth double the price to me.

I really love the 17-40 though.

BL

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
  • Great gear is good. Good technique is better.
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2013, 08:07:10 PM »
However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and  onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person.

this. 

why i chose the 16-35 II over the 17-40, above and beyond the 2.8 thing since i shoot landscapes

M, 5Dc, 1Dx, some lenses, a few lights

Jeremy

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2013, 08:50:41 PM »
I know most people use the 16-35 for landscapes, but I used it on a 7D (had the same view as a 24-56mm) for event work for a couple years and LOVED the combo.  On a crop body it's incredibly sharp...you don't lose the corners.  You also don't care as much because most of what you're shooting is around the middle.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2013, 08:50:41 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14344
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2013, 10:11:13 PM »
However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and  onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person.
this. 

Yes, I like the sunstars with the 16-35L II.  But, can we see some examples of the not-as-nice ones from the 17-40?

Here's one more from the 16-35L II...
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1493
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2013, 11:12:58 PM »
I've never really been impressed with my 16-35 II, and rarely use it. It's not bad, but it's not good either. I ended up falling back on my 24-70 I most of the time, and now that I have the 24-70 II (sold ver. I), I just don't see the value of the 16-35 II. To make up for the loss of a slightly wider angle, I sometimes just stitch photos together from my 24-70 II for a wider pano look.

Me too exactly.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2013, 11:12:58 PM »