Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Discuss our review of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II here.

 

[Harry Muff]

Woohoo! They listened!




Thanks CanonRumors!

 

[infared]

Well-balanced, real review. Thanks Justin. I also like how you throw in you personal biases (your 24 TSE sidebar), it let's us know your approach to shooting and why "you" may or may not like something about a lens.
It's interesting how we photographers all have our own needs, which evolve over time.
I've owned both lenses, 17-40mm & the 16-35mm (which I still own...but would kick to the curb if Canon ever delivers a 14-24mm like the Nikon! LOL!)....I only owned the 17-40mm for about 2 weeks (it was the 1st lens that I had purchased after my kit 24-105 that came on my 5DII).
The one thing that really bothered me immediately about the 17-40mm (something I feel that Justin missed), was the "short throw" on the wide end of the zoom ring..say from 17-24mm. There is almost no throw. It feels truncated and abrupt...so that when zooming to the wide end I had no latitude to adjust my field of view. That REALLY bother "me". The lens did not seem well-balanced because of that factor. Also, I found the softness at f/4 to be disappointing. I ended up shipping the lens back to the seller for a full return of purchase price (something I have never done since with an L lens), and purchasing the 16-35mm L II. Although I gulped on the price, as Justin reports, I found it to be a better lens in every way and I never looked back, (my retirement fund may have,though ).

 

[CGphoto]

So i am looking for a lens to shoot group portraits. I have the canon t4i and will upgrade to full frame in the future. i shoot both indoor and out. so sometimes i have prob in low light. I like bokeh. so should i be getting the 17-40 or a prime lens like a 24mm? or the 16-35? or maybe should i get the 24-105 for handy dandy reasons? i want my first l lens .

 

[Harry Muff]

Thanks for the review. I notice that you use it as I do these days... With flash. It really does create a cool effect when used as fill in with such a wide lens.

 

[JVLphoto]

Well-balanced, real review. Thanks Justin. I also like how you throw in you personal biases (your 24 TSE sidebar), it let's us know your approach to shooting and why "you" may or may not like something about a lens.
It's interesting how we photographers all have our own needs, which evolve over time.
I've owned both lenses, 17-40mm & the 16-35mm (which I still own...but would kick to the curb if Canon ever delivers a 14-24mm like the Nikon! LOL!)....I only owned the 17-40mm for about 2 weeks (it was the 1st lens that I had purchased after my kit 24-105 that came on my 5DII).
The one thing that really bothered me immediately about the 17-40mm (something I feel that Justin missed), was the "short throw" on the wide end of the zoom ring..say from 17-24mm. There is almost no throw. It feels truncated and abrupt...so that when zooming to the wide end I had no latitude to adjust my field of view. That REALLY bother "me". The lens did not seem well-balanced because of that factor. Also, I found the softness at f/4 to be disappointing. I ended up shipping the lens back to the seller for a full return of purchase price (something I have never done since with an L lens), and purchasing the 16-35mm L II. Although I gulped on the price, as Justin reports, I found it to be a better lens in every way and I never looked back, (my retirement fund may have,though ).

Thanks! I'll be writing my 17-40 f/4 L review next, and will definitely touch on those points in it. Obviously, since it was my first lens ever, I definitely have had enough time with it!

 

[JVLphoto]

So i am looking for a lens to shoot group portraits. I have the canon t4i and will upgrade to full frame in the future. i shoot both indoor and out. so sometimes i have prob in low light. I like bokeh. so should i be getting the 17-40 or a prime lens like a 24mm? or the 16-35? or maybe should i get the 24-105 for handy dandy reasons? i want my first l lens .

Well, my recommendation for group portrait's wouldn't be to shoot them at f/2.8, since you may not get everyone in the shot in focus. You'll certainly have more control over the depth of field with the 24mm f/1.4 but, again, not great for groups unless they're all lined-up along your focal plane. You will likely never see a lick of nice bokeh with the 17-40, if you get something close at f/2.8 you will with the 16-35.

The 16-35 is the better of the two, and with higher ISO's being made available to us every day, the level of light a lens lets in is of less concern to me than if I can make the shot - whatever it may be. Just remember how distorted objects (and people) become at the sides. I don't think you can really go wrong with the 16-35 in your case, just be aware that just because you can shoot at f/2.8, doesn't mean you should.

 

[JVLphoto]

Thanks for the review. I notice that you use it as I do these days... With flash. It really does create a cool effect when used as fill in with such a wide lens.

You have that almost backwards, I shoot pretty much everything with flash, and figure out a lens to fill in the space

 

[AudioGlenn]

Discuss our review of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II here.

Thanks for the review. I'm looking forward to adding this lens to my arsenal to complete my f/2.8 trinity.

 

[markjholloway]

I have used this lens for a number of years and it is invaluable when travelling.

The f/2.8 is particularly useful when inside cathedrals and other buildings.

The filter size is now very useful, as it shares the same as the 24-70 Mk II now.

 

[dude]

I would like to point out that the most popular camera was a 1D IV. That has a 1.3x crop sensor. I can understand why this lens is the most popular in that group of photo's.

Nice review.

 

[TommyLee]

I switched from crop (10-22 canon) to FF ... w/16-35 II and saw a fair bit of improvement....
loved this lens on the 1DIII ...

I finally got the 14L II which has a lot less distortion full-wide ... but a lot more fringing / CA ...
(mostly correctable)

but I COULD NOT sell the 16-35 II...just too useful...mine is clean and sharp

I find the 16-35 and a 100L macro make a nice walk-around pair...so capable
(I sometimes bring the 14L and sig 35 with the 100L or 135L as an alternative setup)

but
the review was nicely done ...not a techy review..
but I must say some very nice shooting examples...
really showing what the lens can do...within a short report


the 24-105 is a nice lens and meets most needs...as a one lens kit
but 24mm ...never seems to be quite wide enough....

so .. 16-35 is ....a good lens to have for FF shooters
it really is the way to go for FF wide - IMO

just my thoughts ...thanks for a good look at it


I find this site pretty useful.....
TOM