Reviews and Problems with Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Showing 1-10 of 26
Not Going To Rave About It
BikerDave, B&H Photo
17 October 2013
Excerpt: I'm using this lens with a T2i, I've had it for almost 2 years. I hate to throw cold water on everyone's reviews but I can't rave about the lens. Yes, it can take good pictures, I've used it as the basic lens on this camera along with a EF 70-200 L and I haven't felt the need for a 50mm lens for everyday shots. Crisp? No, the 70-200 is crisp, this lens is always blurry around the edges. The center can be crisp or not, never know quite what you'll get.
Excerpt: Landscape, closeups.<br />Everything you would expect quality wise from an L series.<br />Image Stabilization is not included. Not a primary lens, limited useage.<br />I do recommend this lens if you're looking for greated range than the 24-105 provides and there is a significant difference in shot capabilities between the two.
Pros: Consistent Output, Durable, Easily Interchangeable, Fast / accurate auto-focus, Nice Bokeh, Rugged, Strong Construction
Excerpt: To be honest I have been disappointed with this lens and just emailed Canon to ask about returning it. <br /><br />For an L lens it has never given me the clarity I think an L lens should have. I might have got a bad copy but really cant tell. Sometimes I have a model with an all clear face and others times it is soft.<br /><br />I give it 3 stars because it isn't clear as I think it should be. Going back to primes.
Excerpt: Use this mostly for three dimensional installation artworks and for architectural shots. Lens is a bit soft at the widest aperture 16mm, but makes up for that by being able to shoot in low light conditions.
Pros: Consistent Output, Easily Interchangeable, Fast / accurate auto-focus
Excerpt: I tried 2 copies of this lens, I really wanted to be impressed. Unfortunately neither exceeded my experience with my 17-40mm.<br /><br />Of course it is built like an "L" lens, but for the price differential in the 2 lenses - there should be a noticeable IQ or some tangible improvement.<br /><br />I am sticking with the 17-40mm<br /><br />Since I am using a 1.6x crop camera - maybe those with FF would have a different experience.
Pros: Consistent Output, Durable, Fast / accurate auto-focus, Rugged
Excerpt: I'd like to start a short conversation about this lens rather than a review. This is the second L Series lens I have, the other is the 70-200 f4 with stabilization. There is no question about the focus on the 70-200, it's crisp. So far with the 16-35, since its winter, I've taken mostly low light outdoor and a few indoor pictures. I've got a bit of a problem achieving clear focus. As I understand it, at 16mm I should be expecting the edges to be out of focus?
Excerpt: At the moment I'm very disappointed in the 16mm setting. Unless I don't know how to use it properly, it's useless at that setting unless you want to be doing some sort of distortion photography for pop art. Lots of vignetting at that setting and lots of distortion that I can't even fix in Photoshop. I wanted it for indoor real estate photography, don't really need to be at 16mm, so it can pass. I love the 35mm setting. It's gorgeous!
Pros: Easily Interchangeable, Fast / accurate auto-focus, Strong Construction