Reviews and Problems with Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Showing 1-10 of 17
Value for money 4
Overall quality 6
It is not bad, but it is not good too.
12 June 2011
Conclusion: Overall this lens is not bad. I believe Canon should make IS to this lens. So the quality of the photos would be better. Some 20-35mm photos are out of focus or not too sharp. So this lens is still need to make some improvement. One more thing about this lens. It is over price. The photos quality, and performance are not good enough. Plus NO IS.
Non technical opinion about Canon Lens EF 16-35 L series II
Dr Muhammad Akhtar Qureshi, Amazon
17 February 2011
Summary: Dear all Seasons Greetings. I am Anesthesiologist by profession, so my comments and review my not be helpful as a reference and I am unable to tell you any technical opinion. But on the other hand I am using Canon EOS Series camera since Canon launched it. Currently I am using Canon EOS 550D. I bought this lens mainly for night time parties; my 1st impression was that the quality of pictures was not sharp as compared to my other fixed focus lenses.
Conclusion: If your used to the image quality of a prime lens, this isn't the lens for you. All of the pros combined can't overcome the one con, distortion. I spent a lot of money on this lens; however, I think I'm going to trade it in on the faster 24mm prime.
Summary: If your used to the image quality of a prime lens, this isn't the lens for you. All of the pros combined can't overcome the one con, distortion. I spent a lot of money on this lens; however, I think I'm going to trade it in on the faster 24mm prime.
Summary: Maybe, I'm just used to the clarity of my sub 2.0 aperture lenses. I'm not a professional by far, but I do notice a difference in quality/sharpness even when I set my 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.2 to 2.8. Don't get me wrong, its not a terrible lens, its just that I expected more for over 1K. I only have an EF-S wide-angle lens to compare to, and its obviously worse. Perhaps its unfair to judge between a fixed and a wide-angle lens?
Summary: I use the product for landscapes and people photography. The lens is wide enough for 5D full-frame sensor with pleasantly fast and silent focus. I bought the lens to replace my 17-40 f/4 which was a bit soft for full-frame sensor. The lens is weather sealed, very strong in construction and you can shoot against sun with no major problems. However, after series of tests I was a bit disappointed - the lens is better than 17-40, but still not comparable to 24-105 f/4.
Conclusion: I use this lens a lot on my EOS 5D camera for landscapes. A very good lens as long as you step down to at least f11 or even better: f16. On 24mm this lens gives better sharpness than the 17-40L, 24-105L and 24-70L zooms (I have owned them all) as long as you step down to at least f11. On f4 the 24-105L is the best choice, on f8 the 24-70L, but both of them have very much barrell distorsion.
Pros: Canons sharpest ultra wideangle zoom lens. Good sharpness on f16 and f11, distorsion and cromatic aberration well corrected.
Cons: Very poor resolution and lots of vignetting on f2,8. Poor sharpness in the corners down to f5,6.
Conclusion: I am a long time user of the original 16-35 on a 1Ds and 5D for architectural interiors. After reading the reviews here and other places I thought I'd upgrade to the series II (Now that DxO supports it.) I tested the series II in a store in comparison with my series one version and was disappointed. My main interest was to see if it performed better at 16mm at f8 (a typical aperture for me.) I didn't see much differnece but liked the original better.
Summary: UPDATE: Since posting this review, I have done further experimentation and am coming to a conclusion (no new info from Canon thus far) that (in addition to this lens's gaussian factor) this new version is just more difficult for current camera bodies to focus, which is probably 70 percent of the problem that I'm seeing.