Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

[RuneL]

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

 

[RuneL]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

16-35 @ 16MM f 22

 

[RuneL]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

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]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

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)

 

[StayGold]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

I love those last two shots!

 

[dwward]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

more awesome subway photos.

Is there the DC Metro?

 

[ronderick]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

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?

 

[iris chrome]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

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]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

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]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

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...

 

[bhavikk]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

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

 

[baks5523]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

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]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

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

 

[Tastino0]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tastino0/5682932872/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tastino0/5682923466/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tastino0/5686558022/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tastino0/5682361997

 

[DynaMike]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

Was there a change/update in AF motor and performance between the I and II?

 

[infilm]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

This really is my favorite lens. This was shot at 16mm f/6.3 1/1600 iso 100 on a 7D

 

[JerryBruck]

Re: Canon EF 16-35 2.8L

16-35 @ 16MM f 22

RuneL -- a very soulful image! (pawprints in the sand)