Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
davidrf

davidrf

Jun 3, 2013
13
0
4,746
#1
Hello,
I have a 60D but I'm about to get a 6D, I shoot urbex and landscapes most of the times, so I like wide angle lenses. I've had a good Sigma 10-20 and now I have a great Canon 15-85.

Stepping up to full frame, the natural choice would be a Canon 16-35 L II, because i found the Sigma 12-24 too much soft. But.

But reading several opinions on the forums, I noticed that a lot of people say the 16-35 L II isn't worth that much money, and that it's not as sharp as an L lens should be. I'm sure it's sharper than a Sigma 12-24, but I'd like to have a serious sharpness betterment over the 15-85 I have right now.

What do you think? Thanks a lot!
 
#2
It's a super-wide zoom lens. All super-wide lenses tend to have softness issues in the corners, with the super-wide zooms having a bit more. It does get pretty good stopped down, which if you're doing landscapes you probably are stopping down anyway (most of the time). If you absolutely need corner sharpness, go for the Canon 17/24 TS-E, or Canon 14mm.

Another thing to think about, most people aren't pixel-peeping, and you're probably not examining the corners of most photos. People tend to look more towards the center area, although it can depend on the entire photo and subject matter.

Why not go ahead and rent the 16-35 and try it out? If you don't absolutely need f/2.8, the 17-40 is a pretty competent lens for the most part. It's f/4, and you do need to stop it down a bit for nearly anything, but it's significantly cheaper if you can live with it not being as good as the 16-35 v2.
 
Upvote 0
#4
I've used one on a 5d3 and 7d. I don't see the issue. It's a damn good lens which is very useful.

Try one if you need that focal length. It's a tough lens and its reasonably fast aperture wise. There's a reason the 16-35 mark ii is popular.
 
Upvote 0
#6
I like it. It was the third lens I bought when I purchased my first 5DMKII back in '08. I bought the kit with the 24-105, got the 15mm fisheye a few days later(great lens), the original 70-200 2.8 L IS and then the 16-35 a few months later. I haven't checked the price on it lately and I don't remember if there was a rebate going on when I bought mine, but If I was just buying my gear now, I'd get it. If you're a W/A kind of guy, get it and start enjoying it.
 
Upvote 0
#7
I've got the 16-35ii, and its sharp enough. You really have to consider what you're getting - 16mm is very wide, and zooming to 35mm too.

What I like, is it covers, and covers well. Built in vignetting correction in the 5dii and 7d correct the falloff nicely. There are sharper lenses out there, but to find one thats in that zoom range... nada, thats as good as it gets in the Canon world. Edges are not horrible, but do clean up with stopping down to 5.6.

Its my go-to lens when I shoot events with the 7d with its 25-50ish equiv. That pretty much covers it for social events.
 
Upvote 0
#9
If I had to sell everything but 1 lens due to some financial tragedy, the 16-35 II would be my keeper.

Yes, it has optical shortcomings, yes it's a bit on the pricier side. But once you understand its limitations, it's simply amazing.

Rent it along with the 17-40 and see what suits you.
 
Upvote 0
#10
I have it, had the Version 1 as well, I'm not that keen on the Lens, seldom use it anymore except for Underwater Photography where the Corner distortion no longer presents an issue.

Not as Sharp as other WA L Lenses such as the 24-70f/2.8 L II (Have never tried the 17-40), it's not a cheap Lens, so for that reason alone it's a disappointment to me, What I've done in the Last 12 Months is Buy a couple of Zeiss Lenses which I now use instead of the 16-35, Currently I own the Zeiss Distagon 15f/2.8 & 25f/2, for sharpness at these Ranges Canon have nothing to compare, at all, But, this isn't the cheapest way to get WA sharpness, but it does get you the near perfect WA Lenses for any occasion, with the only downside being No Auto Focus, which in Landscape is generally not an issue as you mostly Focus in Live View.

I might suggest getting a Prime WA like the Zeiss 15 then later when you have the Money, go to the 24-70f/2.8 II, two amazing Lenses.

Someone in an earlier Post suggested Renting first, if that's an option I would say this is always excellent advise, then you can Try before you buy, win win.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Since you have a 60D, don't even consider the 16-35L, get a 17-55 if you need f/2.8. It is much better on FF than a crop. The 17-40L is ok but the 17-55 beats it handily. The 17-40L is best at small apertures. If you can find a used one for under $500, its ok.
You mentioned having the 15-85. Unless you need a AF adjustment, it should be just fine.
 
Upvote 0
#12
I often skip from from 24 (24-70) to 14. I do occasionally use the 16-35 but often go as wide as I can - hence the tendency to go with the 14
 
Upvote 0
#14
I've had a 17-40 since the year they came out ... first on crop-sensor bodies, and now on full frame for the past 6 years.

My copy is satisfactorily sharp, and I'm very pleased with the purchase. It was my walk-around lens in my crop-sensor days, and doesn't get as much use now, but I would never part with it ... it's great for tight interiors and wide landscapes.

I've never been tempted to upgrade to either of the 16-35's.
 
Upvote 0
#15
Not GREAT and not bad :-\

As an owner of 16-35 II, I'm ok with this lens. If you plan to shoot f8 - f11, the 17-40mm f4 might be a better choice in term of $.

If Canon comes out mark III or 12-24mm with IQ as good as Nikon or better, I'll drop this lens in heart beat.
 
Upvote 0
#16
I've never really been impressed with my 16-35 II, and rarely use it. It's not bad, but it's not good either. I ended up falling back on my 24-70 I most of the time, and now that I have the 24-70 II (sold ver. I), I just don't see the value of the 16-35 II. To make up for the loss of a slightly wider angle, I sometimes just stitch photos together from my 24-70 II for a wider pano look.
 
Upvote 0
#17
The 16-35II is not a very spectacular lens - it's not as sharp as other L's (unless you stop down to f11) and you need some creativity and skill to make cool shots with it.

But a couple of days ago there was a post "If you could have just three lenses what would they be?" and surprisingly the 16-35 was on nearly everyone's list (including mine) so I guess it's doing something right.

It is simply the the ultra-wide of choice.
 
Upvote 0
#19
I recently bought the Canon 16-35 II, and had the opportunity to run it through it's paces. My 16-35 II is sharp in the center when stopped down, and I wish the mid frame was as sharp or at least close to the center sharpness. But it's still pretty good stopped down. Corners did not bother me much, but that's just me. However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person. I also felt that my copy of the lens performed better at 35mm than at 16mm. By better I mean, images felt much crisper at 35mm. Would I drop this lens for something else? Yes, only if a 16-35 MKIII with performance as good as the recent 24-70 MKII is ever made. But that's just wishful thinking. If sunstars aren't your thing and you have no use of f2.8, then go for 17-40. My 2 cents.
 
Upvote 0
#20
I had the 10-22 canon on crop sensors...loved it

thren got the 16-35 II when I moved to 5D2...
\
loved it.. it was very good...still have it with 5D3...
but I got the 14L II and love it more..

the 16-35 is still useful when I have a small kit ...
like a 16-35 and a 70-200 ...or maybe just with a 100L macro..
the zoom covers toward normal..

but for me if I want the best..I use the 14L II..
fits nicely below the 24-105 (or 24-70 II) ...or just a great prime like the 35 sigma...maybe add a 135 f2L...

14mm is wonderful..
I guess 50% more for that one..

the 16-35 actually has lower chromatics/fringing than the 14L II...this is all correctable
14L sharper...over all...and to the edges...for sure

is 16-35 worth it ....yes...pay attention to your copy to make sure it is good...
but...it IS worth it - IMO

TOM
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Canon’s disdain for APS-C users.
Replies
34
Views
3K
EricN
EricN
mangobutter
Canon, it's time for a Mark II of the RF 35 1.8 IS
Replies
9
Views
2K
P-visie
P-visie
I
R5 Mark II vs BMPCC 6K G2 - dynamic range, aspect ratios etc
Replies
1
Views
347
Invalid Name
I
ahsanford
New L-plate for R5 Mark II?
Replies
9
Views
3K
Smiling Eddie
Smiling Eddie
A
Absence of something wider than 18mm on crop sensors
Replies
6
Views
2K
AJ
A
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu