# Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?



## Harry Muff (Mar 29, 2013)

Umm... That's it really.




Please!!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Harry Muff (Mar 29, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx




Thanks dude. Already seen that.


I just thought it would a good addition to the list of already reviewed gear by CR.




I've actually recently bought it and I'm not 100% convinced by it and wanted the CR take on it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:
> ...



Gotcha. I have it, and I agree there are some problems, but there are some really good things too. There's distortion (ends and barrel) and it's certainly not as sharp as the TS-17 and the 24L II, but I enjoy the flexibility. I tested it and the 24-70L II at 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm, and the 24-70L II beats the crap out of its resolving power. But if you need 16-24, it's better than the 17-40.


----------



## Harry Muff (Mar 29, 2013)

Agreed.


It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise and don't seem that sharp.


I suppose I just need to learn how to use it after using a 100L constantly for months.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise...



Are suggesting the lens is causing the image noise?


----------



## Harry Muff (Mar 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise...
> ...




I know what you're saying, Neuro, and I know that a lens can't cause noise. It's just not what I was expecting after dropping all that money on it.


It's been love/hate so far. I'll try to knock up some crops to show what I mean and see if it's just me expecting too much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2013)

@ Harry Muff - I hear you. I like the 16-35L II - it's a useful lens. I wouldn't call it 'stellar' or 'excellent'. It's the best FF UWA zoom that Canon offers, so if you need a UWA zoom, that's where it's at.


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 30, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Umm... That's it really.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just had to say awesome user name.

;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 30, 2013)

Canon needs to release mrk III or 14-24 that at least = to Nikon or better :'(


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 30, 2013)

The 16-35mm is a great lens overall, but definitely has it's flaws. It's not that sharp wide open, but around f/4-f/5.6 it gets much better. Also it's not that great in the middle, 16mm and 35mm are alright, but 24mm can look kinda rough. It's the best Canon has in that range that's for sure, but use a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and you'll see how much better it could be.


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 3, 2013)

It's on my "to do" list. I've actually never used it. Kind of scared to, since I own the 17-40 f/4 L and without a doubt I'll want to upgrade after trying it out


----------



## synthetiq (Apr 14, 2013)

Please let me know if I should create a new, separate post for this, but:

Reading through this thread has given me some concern. The 16-35 2.8L II is on my list for my next lens purchase. I want to cover the focal range at 2.8 (16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8 ) and I already have the 24-70.

The 16-35 would primarily be for landscape photography and night/sky exposures. From reading this post, it makes it seem that the 16-35 2.8L II doesn't deserve the "L" when you look at results, especially compared to the 17-40 f4L. Is this true? 

Can anyone recommend a good review that compares the 16-35 to the 17-40? While the 1mm is doable, the extra light from a 2.8 would be missed.

Thanks for any opinions


----------



## Harry Muff (Apr 19, 2013)

I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too. 
The lens is rather good and deserving of its L title. 

Here's one of mine from a couple of days ago:






Melissa Zebra by Marked Improvement Photo




Also, here's one of the threads discussing it and the EF17-40 f4L:

EF 16-35 f2.8L Vs. EF 17-40 f4L Thread


----------



## infared (Apr 20, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Muff said:
> ...



Neuro is on it, Harry. If you are going to grill this lens (WA Zooms Canon's weak point), you are going to have to step up to Canon or Zeiss Primes ( and choose carefully!), to get better IQ...... you are going to stay within this brand. It's just the way it is right now...Perhaps a 14-24 will come down the pike from Canon, but expect it to cost well over $2000. We shall see....


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 20, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too.
> The lens is rather good and deserving of its L title.
> 
> Here's one of mine from a couple of days ago:
> ...



My eyes tell me she's shopped into the photo. Yeah, my glasses are clean.


----------



## Harry Muff (Apr 21, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too.
> ...




Well give them another wipe. It's one image. That's what flash in daylight looks like. Especially when you mess with both the exposure and flash compensation.


----------



## Mick (Apr 24, 2013)

All I can tell you about mine is this. Ive dropped it three times onto rocks. Its been covered in sand, sea and rain. It works perfectly. Is it the worlds sharpest lens? Center wide open its excellent, stop it down and its pretty good across the frame, good enough I cant see any problems on my A3 prints. Its not a 500 f4 but its never going to be. For a wide angle its very good. It has its distortion problems but again its a wide angle and a quick tweek in lightroom and its gone. I managed to use a 14mm prime to take some shots at the same time as my 16-35. Both pics look exactly the same. Ok ones a little wider. Tones and colours pretty much identical. Sharpness? Well I couldnt tell any differance until I zoomed way in and the prime had it, just. But a little post sharpening and theres not much differance. Again I had to zoom way in. Can the human eye detect the differance at the sizes I print is doubtfull. Perhaps edge sharpness was just a bit less than the prime at f16-f22 but its very small on my prints. If I did print bigger stuff then Id buy the prime otherwise I love the 16-35, does what it says on the tin and does it pretty well.


----------



## jrista (Apr 25, 2013)

I think most of the complaints about the 16-35mm L II are the result of the particularly stellar Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. The Nikon 14-24 is an exceptionally sharp lens, particularly at 14mm. It was kind of a game-changer when it hit the streets. Until that lens, the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was an excellent lens with the best quality zoom you could get at that wide of a focal length.

It is a bit dated now, from an optical design perspective, relative to both the Nikon 14-24 as well as Canon's newer generation of lenses from the last couple of years. I bet the CA could be dealt with by using some fluorite elements. The corner softness could probably be corrected with an aspheric element group. I think Canon could do much better, if they tried again today. Bring it up to snuff with the rest of the new lenses.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 22, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Muff said:
> ...



Yes, I shoot the same style of photos. It's her feet that look layered. But if it's one image and you shot it, then it is.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 22, 2013)

It's because I shot it so low down. The flash has lit the underside of the shoes, removing any shadow.


----------



## hsbn (May 22, 2013)

> Yes, I shoot the same style of photos. It's her feet that look layered. But if it's one image and you shot it, then it is.


It's not photoshop, just bad flash techniques more like on camera flash (sorry, no offense even if it sounds harsh).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 22, 2013)

Ok, here's my thoughts on the 16-35 II L:
If I shoot at f2.8, I kind of want blurry corners and heavy vigneting...it saves me adding them later in post. If I want sharp corners....then I stop down because it's likely I'm going to need the depth of field. I wish this lens has less ghosting and flare in harsh sunlight (ie sunrise / sunsets) but I adore the star bursts I get with this lens. It's sharp enough for most professional uses and my copy is probably my most used lens and it shows! 
It's a work horse of a lens and it's built to last. The lens hood is a waste of plastic...what is the point? 
Using 82mm thin filters allows polarisation right down to 16mm....nice! Oh, due to it's lack of a bulbous front element, I can fit filters....that's a real plus point for landscapes. It's weather sealed...another plus point, it's a fast f2.8 and it's gives a brighter metering than many f2.8 lenses. It's AF is quick and accurate. 

The optics are designed to be partially corrected, which is exactly the most useful for an ultra wide lens. 
A Sigma 12-24mm mk I is a fully corrected altra wide, it's uncanny in that straight lines really do stay straight and it's a great architecture lens as a result...but photographing people can be a problem because circles become egg shaped towards the outer edges of the frame. So photographing people becomes an issue...due to circular distortion. A fisheye does the opposite, straight lines bend but circles stay...well circular! So Canon chose a perfect compromise with this lens, it walks a great line (sorry for the pun) between the two camps and allows the photographer to post correct either way without too much loss of resolution. It can shoot architecture and people as a result...unlike the Siggi or Nikkor 14-24mm. Versatility is the key to this lens and that's what makes it so good, not the lens charts that's poked in front of it. Sure there's a lot of room for improvement, but this lens does so much so well. It's one of the most useful professional lenses that there currently is available on the Canon mount. 
Sure it's not the most exotic or sharpest of Canon's zoom lenses. But it's certainly very versatile and can shoot and lot of different genres with easy....in short....it gets the shots and brings the money in.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 23, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Muff said:
> ...



you got to shoot Michael Jackson!


----------



## Harry Muff (May 23, 2013)

Come again? That's my fiancé. 






Melissa Love by Marked Improvement Photo


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

I think he was referring to the flash technique used. It wasn't the best but no big deal, I make mistakes too. I just look at mine and try to learn from it. The second photo is really amazing and well done so it's not like you don't know what you're doing.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 23, 2013)

yeah sorry just the shot in the street does look alot like michael jackson 
probably the flash
and agree the second shot is good though


----------



## CharlieB (May 23, 2013)

I've got the 16-35L II and have had a few issues.

First, my 20/2.8, 28/1.8 are sharper, crisper in the center. I've not really taken a good look at the edges.

My own 16-35L II is soft on detail at 16mm, but retains good contrast. It looks sharper than it really is.

By 24mm it sharpens up considerably, and is not too bad (but not stellar) at 35mm.

The primes kick its poverbial butt.

Falloff... not an issue on my 5Dii or 7D which are correctable for that.

My own copy shows about -6 focus correction at 35mm, and maybe (hard to tell) +2 at 16mm. My bodies will only correct for the entire spectrum of a zoom lens, so I set it at -5 as a compromise.

Its not an OMG THATS SHARP!!!! lens. Its more than adequate though, and retains good contrast and color, and low flare through all its zoom range. Flare is pretty well corrected too.

I shoot it, because its 16mm, and I find that I use that low low end of focal length quite a lot. I can still zoom in for a 35mm focal length (my favorite). It might as well be a 16 or 35 rather than a 16-35 zoom. I rarely use the intermediate focal lengths.

And yah, I'd get it again in a heartbeat if it was lost stolen damaged etc etc etc


----------



## pwp (May 23, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
> Umm... That's it really.
> Please!!


Do a Google search for _Canon 16-35 f/2.8II review_ and you'll have enough reading matter for a full 24 hours.
And you'll learn a lot about the 16-35...

FWIW, my experience with the 16-35 f/2.8II is that is is a competent though imperfect lens. I think you'll see that born out when you read some of the 100's of reviews for this lens that you will find on the www.

-PW


----------



## Dylan777 (May 23, 2013)

I'm thinking selling my and use that money toward to 85L f1.2 II since I shoot alot of candid. I good with 17-40mm, f8 - f16


----------



## sanj (May 23, 2013)

The edges are softISH. Even at f8


----------



## luciolepri (May 29, 2013)

I had the I version and upgraded to the II. Still not "stellar" but definitely a good ultra wide angle zoom. Build quality is excellent and IQ is good enough for most uses, thanks to the high contrast and the pleasent color rendition. If you're looking for decent corner sharpness and light vignetting you have to stop down to 5,6 or more. Distorsion is an issue, but that's to be expected from such a lens. At 35mm IQ drops down, corners WO are very very blurred at the long end, until f/5,6. Short MFD, Low CA, no focus shift and no spherical aberration. All in all, it's a good lens, though quite expensive considering its performances...


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 8, 2013)

Can anyone compare the 16-35 lens on a full-frame camera to the crop-body-angle-equivalent EF-S 10-22 on a crop-body camera? Similar sharpness? Better? Worse?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Can anyone compare the 16-35 lens on a full-frame camera to the crop-body-angle-equivalent EF-S 10-22 on a crop-body camera? Similar sharpness? Better? Worse?



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## JVLphoto (Jun 12, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Umm... That's it really.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aaaand done http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/


----------



## M.ST (Jun 12, 2013)

In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.


----------



## candyman (Jun 12, 2013)

M.ST said:


> In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.




And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 15, 2013)

M.ST said:


> In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.



I guess that a 16-35/2,8 with the same IQ of the 24-70/2,8 II L would cost a lot more, weigh a lot more and have a big, protruding front lens. And I suppose that Canon thinks it wouldn't feet most users need. Otherwise I really can't understand why Canon has in its lineup a lot of telephoto lenses that cost a fortune, with outstanding performances, while short lenses are never so expensive and so good.


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2013)

candyman said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.
> ...


Replacement of 16-35 II L = 16-35 III L
12(14)-24 f/2.8 = new lens (welcome of course but still new lens, not a replacement)


----------



## BL (Jun 15, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise and don't seem that sharp.
> 
> I suppose I just need to learn how to use it after using a 100L constantly for months.



i own both lenses and love using both! but it's important to understand, your baseline of comparison for sharpness is a world-class, L macro lens

if memory serves me right, even 3rd party so-so macro lenses are still amazing when it comes to sharpness, and is generally a simpler lens design.

UWA from what i understand is very difficult to design and engineer and is prone to distortion, CA, and can be subject to compromises in IQ for a number of reasons.

when it comes to sharpness, many (if not most) zoom lenses will look unfavorable 100%, side by side with a macro. prepare to be dissappointed if the 100L is your baseline


----------



## candyman (Jun 15, 2013)

tron said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...




Some people replace their 16-35 2.8 II with a 12(14)-24 f/2.8. For them, that's a replacement ???


----------



## tron (Jun 16, 2013)

candyman said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...


For them anything can be a replacement like a fixed wide angle lens :
For Canon it's certainly not


----------

