Reviews and Problems with Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
Showing 1-5 of 5
28 January 2007
Conclusion: Very disappointed with this one. Bought it through eBay, which allowed me to save couple of pounds. Pouch and cap were included in the price, which was a bonus also. Initial shots disappointed me beyond belief. Having heard the good comments about sharpness of the lens I was pretty much gutted. Due to the lack of lenses in the similar range I had to compare this to my existing Sigma 24-70mm f3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF and my friend's Canon 17-40mm f4L.
Conclusion: I got this lens over the 17-40 because I took a gamble that the poor reviews were possibly wrong or that the quality was variable. Hearing that QC had greatly improved I thought I'd be likely to end up with a good copy and so took the plunge. Well I got a bad one - a very bad one. I'd be fascinated to know if the ones that people rate so highly are significantly better than the one I had or if the reviewers (no offence) are in denial.
Pros: It's difficult to say anything positive about my copy except the construction was very solid and focussing very smooth
Cons: Shocking CA. Very poor sharpness even at f16.
Conclusion: I took this one back. I'll just keep my little Tamron 17-35. My Tamron was slightly sharper @ 2.8, better @ 4.0 and equal every where else. The Canon is faster focusing and constant with a warm tone. I thought if it was sharper than my Tamron I'd keep it. Not a chance. The Tamron is a much better buy for the money.
Pros: fast usm that's about it.
Cons: not the sharpest lense for the money. not sharp @ 2.8 so exactly why buy this lense. Ok @4.0 again what the he**.
Conclusion: Seems not been made for digital cameras. Performance on FF Camera is slightly better than on a crop camera. I would prefer a good 18-28 lens (offering good image quality stoped down at no more then 5,6), over this junk lens. Quality 16-24 is very poor, even above you need to stop down at f11 to get corner sharpness. Get the anything lens!
Pros: build quality.
Cons: poor picture quality, soft corners, quality from 16-24 not acceptabel for his very expensive L lens
Conclusion: High marks for robust build quality, features, and AF precision and speed. That's where the positives end however, as the 16-35/2.8L is just a very poor optical performer. I bought one at my local dealer, returned it after three days and exchanged it for a new one, and then returned the second one for a 17-40/4L and a refund of the difference. Needless to say, the 17-40 optically trounces the 16-35 -- period.
Pros: Wide enough to bring "wide angle" back to those dSLRs hobbled by the extreme 1.6x FOV sensor crop. Exceptionally well built and weather sealed. Exhudes engineering quality. Fast, silent, accurate AF. Sharpens up somewhat at 35mm.
Cons: Optically poor, especially for the high price. Easily bested by its much cheaper sybling -- the 17-40/4L. Plenty of barrel distortion at the wide end, even on a cropped dSLR. Sharper at 35mm, but what's the point?!