September 02, 2014, 01:43:39 AM

Author Topic: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM  (Read 13756 times)

RuneL

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
« on: February 24, 2011, 11:31:14 AM »
A few quick words on this lens.
I've had it for about 6 years and it has never missed a beat. It's been in sand storms, storms in the north sea, rain, snow, cold, heat, been dropped. It is a very sturdy lens with extremely fast AF and compared to the 24-70 2.8 seems much better built (the hood mount is metal and not plastic, as an example). Right, words of praise. A few pictures.

16-35 @ 16MM F6.3

canon rumors FORUM

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
« on: February 24, 2011, 11:31:14 AM »

RuneL

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2011, 11:34:05 AM »
16-35 @ 16MM f 22

RuneL

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2011, 11:34:49 AM »
At some point when I get further through my RAID I'll post something more, this is what I had on the laptop drive.

RuneL

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2011, 12:17:00 PM »
You can post flickrs :)

@16mm f16

@35mm f 2.8 (which sorta stipulates some of the awesomeness of this lens, it seems sharp for miles)
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 12:18:32 PM by RuneL »

StayGold

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2011, 12:56:53 PM »
I love those last two shots!

dwward

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2011, 01:24:01 PM »
more awesome subway photos. 

Is there the DC Metro?

ronderick

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2011, 09:24:24 PM »
I've actually been eyeing the 16-35mm for a while.

However, are there significant differences between 16-35 I and 16-35 II? II is in stock at most places, but getting a used I would save me some cash...

I'm wandering which has the better bang for the buck?
Canon EOS 1D MKIV, EF 24-105mm F/4L, EF 70-200mm F/2.8L, TS-E 17mm F/4L, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
FujiFilm FinePix X100

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2011, 09:24:24 PM »

iris chrome

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2011, 09:45:09 PM »
Again, great subway picture (just like your other post on the 50mm 1.2L). All the grey and bronze colors from the walls and the tracks seem to mix so nicely with the lights on the wall and from the train car. Love to see more of that set.

RuneL

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2011, 03:41:47 AM »
Thanks for the kind words!

If you're shooting full frame there may be some reason to get the 16-35 II. I'm shooting on a 1.3 crop at 16mp and I'm not much of a pixel peeper, it works fine for me.
The new one is a bit sharper… I think? Just what someone told me. Has a different filter size, which is, afaik, the only real differences.

If you can get the 16-35 cheap do it. It's an amazing lens.

This is the autonomous metro in Copenhagen :)

ronderick

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2011, 09:11:27 AM »
Thanks RuneL,

I think I'll go and have a serious look at the 16-35mm I.

If there's only a slight difference in quality, I might as well try to save some money and invest in other gears. You're also right about the filter - the 16-35 I has the 77-filter while the newer version uses the 82. I totally forgot about that...
Canon EOS 1D MKIV, EF 24-105mm F/4L, EF 70-200mm F/2.8L, TS-E 17mm F/4L, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
FujiFilm FinePix X100

bhavikk

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2011, 09:18:16 PM »
Great photos RuneL.

Here are some I've taken with my 16-35 II

Edit:
First looks a little de-saturated once I posted it (I don't have a calabraited monitor). 35mm, 1/4, f2.8 @ ISO 400
Second: 16mm, 1/10, f2.8 @ ISO 1600
Third: 20mm, 1/8, f2.8 @ ISO 1600
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 01:12:53 AM by bhavikk »
Gear: A lot of gear made by Canon

baks5523

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2011, 12:12:07 AM »
Very nice shots of the subway! I own the mkII of this lense and to be honest I wasn't so sure I would use it as much as I have. Now it seems whenever I'm not shooting sports, this is the lense that's on my camera.

Again, well done.

infilm

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2011, 06:31:45 PM »
Go ahead and save a few bucks. I have seen focus charts of the two lenses and there isn't enough difference to justify the expense. Here is a link to view the focus charts. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=114&Camera=9&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
Canon 7D gripped - 5D2 gripped - 16-35 f2.8l - 24-70 f2.8l - 70-200 f.2.8 IS l - 35 f1.4l - 50 f1.2l - 85 f1.2 l - 135 f2 l - 300 f4 l Tokina 10-17 Fisheye - 580EX II - And not much drive space left on my computer...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2011, 06:31:45 PM »


DynaMike

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2011, 07:21:12 PM »
Was there a change/update in AF motor and performance between the I and II? 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2011, 07:21:12 PM »