Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

[Canon-F1]

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.

huh?
that reads as if you advice to use the 17-55mm f2.8 on a FF body.

from a image quality point of view the 16-35mm performs better on a Crop then on a FF body.
because the not so good borders are out of the image circle on a Crop body.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I've used my 16-35IIL so much, it's one of my heavy use lenses. It's the only lens I've ever had to replace the front element on. I've had a number of ultra wides over the years and the 16-35IIL is the best of the lot. While it's not a modern lens and could do with some serious upgrading, it's still the most versatile ultra wide available on the Canon mount.
Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 dii. A sharp lens, but flare control was apalling and the distortion was the worst I've ever seen in a lens.
Sigma 12-24 HSM, an odd lens. Hard to put filters and mine has awful corners with any aperture bigger than f11....but that angle of view is amazing and it's the most corrected lens for angular distortion I've ever seen.
Canon 17-40L, it's a lovely lens. Relativly cheap, sharp enough and very versatile. I only sold mine because I needed the f2.8 aperture.
Canon ef 16-35IIL, while far from perfect it's the most versatile ultra wide lens there is. Great colours and contrast, nice sunstars, epic build.
Once upon a time ultra wides were the re-mit of pro photographers and considered a niche lens. These days, everyone's got one...but one questions why? Many sit on shelves gathering dust because the 24mm end on most zooms is usually wide enough for most uses. I think this lens get a lot of unfair critisim. My advise is to stop looking for optical perfection and get out there and use it.

 

[davidrf]

Thanks a lot for all the kind answers... I think I'll try to go for a good used 16-35L II, if I can find one! Right now I'd prefer not to spend over 1000$ (or €, in my case).

But maybe I will give a look to the Tokina 16-28 too... I didn't know anything about this lens, and the reviews seem very favourable.

 

[sunnyVan]

I've used my 16-35IIL so much, it's one of my heavy use lenses. It's the only lens I've ever had to replace the front element on. I've had a number of ultra wides over the years and the 16-35IIL is the best of the lot. While it's not a modern lens and could do with some serious upgrading, it's still the most versatile ultra wide available on the Canon mount.
Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 dii. A sharp lens, but flare control was apalling and the distortion was the worst I've ever seen in a lens.
Sigma 12-24 HSM, an odd lens. Hard to put filters and mine has awful corners with any aperture bigger than f11....but that angle of view is amazing and it's the most corrected lens for angular distortion I've ever seen.
Canon 17-40L, it's a lovely lens. Relativly cheap, sharp enough and very versatile. I only sold mine because I needed the f2.8 aperture.
Canon ef 16-35IIL, while far from perfect it's the most versatile ultra wide lens there is. Great colours and contrast, nice sunstars, epic build.
Once upon a time ultra wides were the re-mit of pro photographers and considered a niche lens. These days, everyone's got one...but one questions why? Many sit on shelves gathering dust because the 24mm end on most zooms is usually wide enough for most uses. I think this lens get a lot of unfair critisim. My advise is to stop looking for optical perfection and get out there and use it.

Nice pictures.

 

[serendipidy]

I've used my 16-35IIL so much, it's one of my heavy use lenses. It's the only lens I've ever had to replace the front element on. I've had a number of ultra wides over the years and the 16-35IIL is the best of the lot. While it's not a modern lens and could do with some serious upgrading, it's still the most versatile ultra wide available on the Canon mount.
Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 dii. A sharp lens, but flare control was apalling and the distortion was the worst I've ever seen in a lens.
Sigma 12-24 HSM, an odd lens. Hard to put filters and mine has awful corners with any aperture bigger than f11....but that angle of view is amazing and it's the most corrected lens for angular distortion I've ever seen.
Canon 17-40L, it's a lovely lens. Relativly cheap, sharp enough and very versatile. I only sold mine because I needed the f2.8 aperture.
Canon ef 16-35IIL, while far from perfect it's the most versatile ultra wide lens there is. Great colours and contrast, nice sunstars, epic build.
Once upon a time ultra wides were the re-mit of pro photographers and considered a niche lens. These days, everyone's got one...but one questions why? Many sit on shelves gathering dust because the 24mm end on most zooms is usually wide enough for most uses. I think this lens get a lot of unfair critisim. My advise is to stop looking for optical perfection and get out there and use it.

Simply gorgeous!

 

[Invertalon]

I have a hard time when I think of buying this lens because the 17-40 is half the price and the same IQ/build... Just with f/4 vs. f/2.8... For an UWA, I stop them down anyway, so the f/2.8 although nice at times, is not worth double the price to me.

I really love the 17-40 though.

 

[BL]

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.

this.

why i chose the 16-35 II over the 17-40, above and beyond the 2.8 thing since i shoot landscapes

 

[Jeremy]

I know most people use the 16-35 for landscapes, but I used it on a 7D (had the same view as a 24-56mm) for event work for a couple years and LOVED the combo. On a crop body it's incredibly sharp...you don't lose the corners. You also don't care as much because most of what you're shooting is around the middle.

 

[Loswr]

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.

this.

Yes, I like the sunstars with the 16-35L II. But, can we see some examples of the not-as-nice ones from the 17-40?

Here's one more from the 16-35L II...

 

[sanj]

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.

Me too exactly.

 

[killswitch]

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.

this.

Yes, I like the sunstars with the 16-35L II. But, can we see some examples of the not-as-nice ones from the 17-40?

17-40 sunstars examples
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nblain/8916365476/#in/pool-17-40ff/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28682226@N05/8970694376/#in/pool-17-40ff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/quichbill/8628416467/#in/pool-17-40ff

I kind of like this one though: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoops510/8946512922/#in/pool-17-40ff

 

[BL]

isn't it really interesting how the 17-40 is exhibiting both 8 point and 14 point stars?

anyone know how that's possible?

EDIT: oh wait, the first image is the 24-105 based on exif

 

[killswitch]

isn't it really interesting how the 17-40 is exhibiting both 8 point and 14 point stars?

anyone know how that's possible?

EDIT: oh wait, the first image is the 24-105 based on exif

Lol, good catch. Thanks for the heads up. That photo was submitted to the 17-40L group by the user, should have double checked the exif. Thanks. >_<

Edit: I have removed the link to this photo. Thanks again.

 

[davidrf]

The sunstars with the 16-35 are among the best I've ever seen on any lens.

 

[BL]

even if (when) canon releases a 14-24, i'll stick with this lens as my primary UWA.

24-35 is just too useful a range to give up w/o changing lenses, and i'm skeptical as to whether the new 14-24 would even have filter threads, or at least be a size matching the set i already own.

now if canon decided to release a mkIII (highly doubtful anytime in the near futuer) with improved corners at 2.8-5.6 and 35mm that wasn't soft in the center at 2.8, i would be overwhelmed with happiness ;D

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Thanks a lot for all the kind answers... I think I'll try to go for a good used 16-35L II, if I can find one! Right now I'd prefer not to spend over 1000$ (or €, in my case).

But maybe I will give a look to the Tokina 16-28 too... I didn't know anything about this lens, and the reviews seem very favourable.

Used prices will probably be closer to the $1200-1300 range...I picked up mine used from adorama...and...what is it doing...it is mounted on my mk3 right now!

 

[TM]

It's worth it for me because of the f2.8 and versatility of zoom. It's sharp enough but certainly is not the sharpest wide lens, particularly mid-frame to the edges. If I want razor sharp for landscapes, I'll reach for my 24mm TSE II or 24-70mm f2.8II, if the ultra wide end isn't needed.

 

[dirtcastle]

even if (when) canon releases a 14-24, i'll stick with this lens as my primary UWA.

24-35 is just too useful a range to give up w/o changing lenses, and i'm skeptical as to whether the new 14-24 would even have filter threads, or at least be a size matching the set i already own.

now if canon decided to release a mkIII (highly doubtful anytime in the near futuer) with improved corners at 2.8-5.6 and 35mm that wasn't soft in the center at 2.8, i would be overwhelmed with happiness ;D

+1

This lens does a great juggling act between image quality, versatility, and the limits of lens technology. That said, I agree that image quality was where the compromise was made with this lens. This lens has an incredible focal range, it's light, and it's reasonably priced for what you get. But it's not super sharp. And corners are often soft, distorted, and full of fringing.

Like many folks here, I would prefer a 14-24mm with improved IQ. That said, If I could have only two lenses, the 16-35mm would be high on that list.

 

[davidrf]

I've found a guy who sells a 16-35L II with residual warranty until next november at 900€. The lowest price for the new is 1250€: I think I'll give this used lens a try and maybe I'll buy it!

 

[wayno]

The sunstars with the 16-35 are among the best I've ever seen on any lens.

You should see the sun stars on the 24-70ii, if that's the case (if you haven't already). At f8 they're remarkable.