www.testfreaks.com

Reviews, reviews, reviews...

Canon-ef-16-35mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm.29016201
8.8 out of 10

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

Built for professionals or the serious amateur photographer, the Read more

Great Deal: $22.99

Reviews and Problems with Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Showing 1-10 of 16
Overall 4
4.0

Not Sharp

Aggie shooter, B&H Photo
22 November 2013
  • Excerpt: I've had my copy over a year. In my experience, it isn't sharp through much of its range and seldom comes out of the bag. I sent it to Canon repair on the East Coast. They checked it out, sent it back, said it operates within parameters. Whose parameters? I have to sell these photos to art directors. BTW, the lens was returned to me rattling loose in the box, with the original styrofoam inserts missing.
  • Cons: Blurry Focus
  • Read full review
Overall 4
4.0

I guess I got a bad copy

Wapas, B&H Photo
9 December 2012
  • Excerpt: I have to say, I am a little suprised by all the reviews I have read regarding bad copies of a lens. I am shocked that at this price point, canon does not have some better quality control. These must be streaming out of china now or something. Anyways, this lens looks and feels well built, but the zoom was not real smooth. The shots I took were just not sharp or nice. My cheap kit lens on my 2Ti took far superior shots. I had this on my 5Dmk2 btw.
  • Pros: Durable, Rugged, Strong Construction
  • Cons: Blurry Focus
  • Read full review
Overall 4
4.0

OK but not worth the price

airplanes, B&H Photo
30 May 2012
  • Excerpt: I bought this to use it mostly at 16mm with my 5D ii. I knew that it wouldn't be completely sharp wide open but was really disappointed at the outer edges even at f8. It was not sharp in the outer 1/5th of both sides (right a little worse than left). I may have just gotten a bad copy (or maybe I just don't know what I am doing with a super wide lens) but it wasn't worth it to me. Thankfully B&H took the return and paid for shipping.
  • Pros: Rugged, Strong Construction
  • Cons: Not sharp
  • Read full review
Overall 3
3.0

User Review

alexander65, Fredmiranda
3 August 2011
  • Conclusion: Bought this lens 2 years ago and never was really happy. The middle, as expected, is sharp, BUT on a fullframe body like the 5dMkII you quickly see the not so impressive corners and edges: they are soft, absolutely not sharp, even going at f8, where every lens should shine. I accepted it or used it only on the 1D, being a crop and so cutting of the worst.
  • Pros: Middle was sharp, lightweight compared to 2,8
  • Cons: Corners never sharp, big minus in architecture; Competitors do it better for even less money
  • Read full review
Overall 4
4.0

Canon 16-35 mm L II E-

Tod Burns, Adorama
8 January 2010
  • Excerpt: I purchased a refurbished 1D MK III from Adorama and was ecstatic. I purchased an "E-", a used 16-35 mm L II from Adorama, no hood, no bag, generic poor fitting front of lens cap (these items are included with a new purchase.
  • Pros: Lightweight
  • Cons: Not the usual"pin sharp"
  • Read full review
Overall 3
3.0

User Review

matty lough, Fredmiranda
22 August 2008
  • Conclusion: This lens is supposed to take pictures at focal lengths from 16mm to 35mm. If we essentially take this to be 20 individual focal lengths, then only 8 of those are fully fit for purpose. Its an f2.8 lens, but at any focal length only becomes useful for picture taking from f8, and with the limitations of the physics f22 is not much use either.
  • Pros: Good build quality
  • Cons: Poor performance across a wide range of focal lengths and f-stops. Very expensive for what you do get.
  • Read full review
Overall 4
4.0

User Review

dprees, Fredmiranda
27 June 2008
  • Conclusion: Finally decided to pop for one of these, and ordered one from a reputable HK dealer. Lens arrived, and initial impressions from handling the lens were good. However, first images did not impress, and so I set up comparative tests with other lenses covering equivalent focal lengths, using LiveView on a 450D, with tripod, MLU and remote release to eliminate variables as far as possible. Results were very interesting. Centre performance was not stunning, but OK.
  • Pros: Good build quality, my copy had reasonable IQ at 16mm to 24mm.
  • Cons: Poor IQ at 28mm, and terrible IQ at 35mm (significantly worse than old 18-55mm kit lens at ALL apertures).
  • Read full review
Overall 3
3.0

User Review

Bert 1969, Fredmiranda
13 May 2008
  • Conclusion: I bought this lens because I was not happy with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens I had, sold that one and bought a prime 50mm f/1.4. But now I was missing a wide angle lens so I bought this 16-35mm II f/2.8 after reading serveral reviews. My main photography is concert, events and people so I need the f/2.8 or f/4.0. I'm very disappointed about the performance of this lens at f/2.8 at any distance it is soft in the center and very soft in the corners.
  • Pros: Good contrast, great build.
  • Cons: Very poor performance from f/2.8 to f/5.6 especially in the corners.
  • Read full review
Overall 3
3.0

User Review

craigdoogan, Fredmiranda
7 May 2008
  • Conclusion: I purchased this lens for wedding photography and to replace my 17-40L. I needed the extra stop. I have had 2 copies of this lens, sent the first back as it was so poor compared to my other L lenses in every aspect. Sharpness was very poor at all apertures, I couldnt use the lens at 2.8 it was so bad. Got my new copy and it was just the same!
  • Pros:
  • Cons: soft @ 2.8 Unatractive blurry corners
  • Read full review
Overall 4
4.0

Is There an 'L' in 'Disappointment'? There is in the 16-35's Vocabulary...

M. Kelly, Amazon
9 December 2013
  • Summary: I felt I had to put 'finger to keyboard' to write this review, because this lens has disappointed me, in a BIG way... First off, I have to say that I love using my Canon kit. I'm strictly an amateur, but have been lucky enough to buy a few 'red ringers', which include the 14mm, 24-70mm, 50mm, 70-200 IS, 85mm and the 100mm Macro. I love using them all, and they produce (on the whole) great results.
  • Read full review
Next page >>