April 16, 2014, 12:54:37 AM

Author Topic: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm  (Read 8782 times)

degies

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
    • Degies927
Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« on: October 25, 2011, 01:24:59 PM »
Has anyone got some insights into this lens. I am looking to order the item and i am reading conflicting articles and reviews. Newer articles seem to have better reviews. I am just looking to get some wide angles without going down to a 10 mm UW?
Thx :) :) ;) :D
Wishing i can leave my Day-Job and do this full time :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/degies927

canon rumors FORUM

Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« on: October 25, 2011, 01:24:59 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12721
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2011, 02:37:02 PM »
What body are you using?   I ask because you mention 10mm, and if you can use a 10mm lens on your body, I expect you have an APS-C camera. 

The 16-35mm f/2.8L II is an excellent lens, and I enjoy using it on my 5DII.  But if you have a 1.6x body, 16mm is wide, but not ultrawide.  If you want ultrawide, get a Canon 10-22mm, Tokina 11-16mm, or Sigma 8-16mm.  If you want -'wide-to-normal' like the 16-35mm f/2.8 offers, get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS instead - it's cheaper, has IS, and will yield better IQ (except for vignetting) than the 16-35mm on APS-C.

If you have a FF body (or APS-H), let us know - that makes a huge difference in lens choice!
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

ianhar

  • Guest
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2011, 07:58:38 PM »
If you are using aps-c tokina 11-16 is the way to go. I cant see why people want to use 16-35 on aps-c. 17-55 f2.8 is a more viable solution.

Crapking

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
  • "Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
    • View Profile
    • Crapking Photos
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2011, 02:15:38 PM »
I've used it indoors, wide-open, using AF servo, on a 7D, shooting courtside at volleyball matches for an interesting perspective.
Fast focus, sharp to the edges, even at 2.8.
1Dx, 1DIV, 5D3, 7D, (Sigma 15 FE)
16-35/2.8; 24-70/2.8 II; 70-200/2.8 II, 100-400L
35/1.4, 40/2.8; 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2; 200/2

kennykodak

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
  • M.Photog.MEI.Cr.
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2011, 04:47:20 PM »
i like this a lot for huge groups and architecture.

Raddy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2011, 04:52:02 PM »
I bought that lens 2 weeks ago. Currently using it on my 60D and I love it so far. I also considered buying the EF-S 17-55mm instead but as I plan to upgrade to a possible 5D Mark III sooner or later I went for the 16-35.
5D Mark III (gripped) | 60D (gripped)
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM | EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM | Speedlite 430EX | Speedlite 600EX-RT

mreco99

  • Guest
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2011, 04:55:57 PM »
If you are using aps-c tokina 11-16 is the way to go. I cant see why people want to use 16-35 on aps-c. 17-55 f2.8 is a more viable solution.
had the tokina 11-16 on 450d, lots of CA, but nice and wide. average sharpness. dont have it anymore.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2011, 04:55:57 PM »

cpsico

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2011, 05:51:08 PM »
Its a great available light/wide angle lens you would be very happy with it as an addition to your camera bag. I have used it with all three sensors 1.6 1.3 &full frame it is wonderful with all of them. Crop sensors have the benefit of just using the sweet spot in the middle of the glass, but not as wide of and angle.

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1363
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2011, 07:53:19 PM »
If you are using aps-c tokina 11-16 is the way to go. I cant see why people want to use 16-35 on aps-c. 17-55 f2.8 is a more viable solution.

Absolutely, the 17-55 is one of the sharpest zooms I've ever used, I mean I was shocked when I saw how sharp the pics were.  It has a great range, the IS works well, and it's just an all around great lens.

OP I have the 16-35 II and it's an awesome lens, BUT if you want true wide angle on an APS-C sensor go for the Tokina 11-16mm.  Youll have the same field of view as the 16-35mm on a full frame camera, so it'll be ultra wide and you'll have a ton of fun with it I promise.

You could probably find the 11-16mm used for about $500, and you could find the 17-55 used for $850-$1000.  You could have BOTH of those for about the same or less than the 16-35mm.   
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12721
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2011, 09:05:02 PM »
Youll have the same field of view as the 16-35mm on a full frame camera, so it'll be ultra wide and you'll have a ton of fun with it I promise.

Not really. 11-16mm on APS-C is equivalent to 17.5-25.5mm on FF, so the 16-35mm is a little wider and considerably longer.  10-22mm on APS-C is equivalent to 16-35mm on FF.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

ianhar

  • Guest
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2011, 08:22:56 AM »
Youll have the same field of view as the 16-35mm on a full frame camera, so it'll be ultra wide and you'll have a ton of fun with it I promise.

Not really. 11-16mm on APS-C is equivalent to 17.5-25.5mm on FF, so the 16-35mm is a little wider and considerably longer.  10-22mm on APS-C is equivalent to 16-35mm on FF.

When i buy the tokina 11-16 earlier this year it was between the tokina or canon 10-22. I choose the former for the constan aperture. Both lens is sharp however tokina suffer badly from qc. Its better to buy it from a place where you could replace it rather than fixing it.

The shorter focal length is never been a problem to me. Since i used a lot of prime i consider the tokina to be a prime lens too.

I think the tokina has more solid built quality than canon 10-22.

Just my 2cent on 11-16

branden

  • Guest
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2011, 05:37:28 PM »
How is the color rendition on the 16-35L II?

Most reviews brush very quickly over this point, since I imagine it's difficult to test for. But has anyone noticed any issues with flat, bland, or washed out colors with this lens? How is it compared to the (ridiculously good) Zeiss 21mm?

Rich coloring is important to me. As an example, using the EFS 18-135mm lens, I've noticed very washed out, tinted-towards-blue-in-a-bad-way results in certain situations, whereas (unfair comparison) the 24L2 on the same body creates nice results.

I'm shooting both crop and full-frame, if that's important.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12721
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2011, 06:49:56 PM »
I can't compare to the Zeiss lens you mention - I've got over $100K in Zeiss 'glass' at my disposal, but it's all in microscope objectives.  But, color rendition with the 16-35mm is very nice. That's one area where it's better than the EF-S 17-55mm on the 7D.  Generally, L lenses deliver good color; it's a notable difference between the 85L and the 85/1.8, though otherwise the latter compares very well to the L (axial CA and obviously the wider aperture notwithstanding).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2011, 06:49:56 PM »

JR

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1244
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2011, 07:23:37 PM »
Just picking up on the last 2 post here so not specific to the 16-35mm L II per say but I can say that all the "L" glass I have tried and own all have one thing in common: color rendition is amazing compared to non-L lens.

I dont own the 16-35mm L yet, but i am sure its color rendition is truthful to the L series...
1DX, 24mm f1.4L II, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L II, 135mm f2L, 24-70mm f2.8L II, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II :  D800, D4, and a whole bunch of Nikon lenses

branden

  • Guest
Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2011, 07:54:46 PM »
Thank you for the info. I know the 18-135mm lens is in a different class than all the other optics in the discussion, the information here is helpful.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2011, 07:54:46 PM »