16-35 II vs what?

[Invertalon]

I had the 17-40L for quite a while before recently upgrading to the 16-35 II... Sure it is quite sharp at 16mm wide open in the center, but overall, I prefer the 17-40L. Much better value for the money.

I think the 17-40L is sharper, honestly... Between the 2-3 17-40L's I have used and the two 16-35 II's... Maybe the corners go to the 16-35 II, but overall I think the 17-40L is every bit as good if not better. I think 40mm is better than the 35mm between lenses.

If you need f/2.8, go for 16-35 II... If not, the 17-40L is every bit as good.

 

[tomscott]

Please don't take what you read on here and what you see in the charts as gospel.

As I put in another thread, I nearly didn't buy the 16-35mm II because of the reviews on Canon Rumors but I went ahead and bought one as I don't see another one coming any time soon. The old buy what you need now rather than waiting for what doesn't exist is good advice.

I nearly didn't buy it because of the poor reviews this site has given it. In practice I have been pleasantly surprised really great lens nice and sharp even at 2.8 at 16mm apart from the very very far corners. Unless I have an exceptional copy.

I haven't used the tokina myself, but it doesn't seem night and day in difference from reading reviews. Its also not as robust and that would worry me when using it professionally, neither is it weather sealed. But it does have slightly better IQ.

I have had it for a week and its right up there with my fav lenses!

Shot I did on wed for a local client


Penrith Building Supplies bathroom displays 2014 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

 

[sanj]

I had the lens for a year. Did not like the corner sharpness at all when full open. Sold it.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

Had a 17-40L over a weekend to test, didnt like the "softness" in the corners plus horrible chromatic abberations.
Bought a 16-35II, had it over a year, never liked it.
Even at f8 too soft even for a A4 print.
Sold it.

Bought the Tokina 16-28: much better!
I had luck, because there should be some bad copies too.

So from my experience- a single one and so not representative for all- Tokina finally did it for me.
Ah yes, much cheaper, but this isnt interesting for me on the long run or IQ- wise.

 

[Shield]

I went with the Tokina - it's very sharp all over; one of my favorite lenses. It's sharper than the Canon 16-35 II and if you can deal with no filters it's the one to get.

Here's a pretty good review comparing the Tokina and the Canon..

http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/canon-16-35mm-ii-tokina/

Shawn

 

[gjones5252]

Just would like to add my 2 cents.
I am so happy i didnt read the reviews on the 16-33 ii before purchasing. It is a superb lens.
i have really fell in love with it at 35mm on my copy, i feel its sharp, accurate and renders colors well.
I am learning more how to use it on 16mm. When shooting people with 16 they really must be extremely close to center or their body shape will be altered, and its usually not to make them skinnier.

One thing i use this lens nearly all the time for video. The focus range is unbeatable. I can put the lens at about 1.5ft focal range and have nearly everything i need in focus.

Dont read the reviews solely, get it.