# Canon 16-35mm L II Usm



## degies (Oct 25, 2011)

Has anyone got some insights into this lens. I am looking to order the item and i am reading conflicting articles and reviews. Newer articles seem to have better reviews. I am just looking to get some wide angles without going down to a 10 mm UW?
Thx


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2011)

What body are you using? I ask because you mention 10mm, and if you can use a 10mm lens on your body, I expect you have an APS-C camera. 

The 16-35mm f/2.8L II is an excellent lens, and I enjoy using it on my 5DII. But if you have a 1.6x body, 16mm is wide, but not ultrawide. If you want ultrawide, get a Canon 10-22mm, Tokina 11-16mm, or Sigma 8-16mm. If you want -'wide-to-normal' like the 16-35mm f/2.8 offers, get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS instead - it's cheaper, has IS, and will yield better IQ (except for vignetting) than the 16-35mm on APS-C.

If you have a FF body (or APS-H), let us know - that makes a huge difference in lens choice!


----------



## ianhar (Oct 26, 2011)

If you are using aps-c tokina 11-16 is the way to go. I cant see why people want to use 16-35 on aps-c. 17-55 f2.8 is a more viable solution.


----------



## Crapking (Nov 10, 2011)

I've used it indoors, wide-open, using AF servo, on a 7D, shooting courtside at volleyball matches for an interesting perspective.
Fast focus, sharp to the edges, even at 2.8.


----------



## kennykodak (Nov 10, 2011)

i like this a lot for huge groups and architecture.


----------



## Raddy (Nov 10, 2011)

I bought that lens 2 weeks ago. Currently using it on my 60D and I love it so far. I also considered buying the EF-S 17-55mm instead but as I plan to upgrade to a possible 5D Mark III sooner or later I went for the 16-35.


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 10, 2011)

ianhar said:


> If you are using aps-c tokina 11-16 is the way to go. I cant see why people want to use 16-35 on aps-c. 17-55 f2.8 is a more viable solution.


had the tokina 11-16 on 450d, lots of CA, but nice and wide. average sharpness. dont have it anymore.


----------



## cpsico (Nov 10, 2011)

Its a great available light/wide angle lens you would be very happy with it as an addition to your camera bag. I have used it with all three sensors 1.6 1.3 &full frame it is wonderful with all of them. Crop sensors have the benefit of just using the sweet spot in the middle of the glass, but not as wide of and angle.


----------



## Axilrod (Nov 13, 2011)

ianhar said:


> If you are using aps-c tokina 11-16 is the way to go. I cant see why people want to use 16-35 on aps-c. 17-55 f2.8 is a more viable solution.



Absolutely, the 1*7-55 is one of the sharpest zooms I've ever used,* I mean I was shocked when I saw how sharp the pics were. It has a great range, the IS works well, and it's just an all around great lens.

OP I have the *16-35 II* and it's an *awesome lens*, BUT if you want true wide angle on an APS-C sensor go for the Tokina 11-16mm. Youll have the same field of view as the 16-35mm on a full frame camera, so it'll be ultra wide and you'll have a ton of fun with it I promise.

You could probably find the *11-16mm used for about $500*, and you could find the *17-55 used for $850-$1000*. You could have *BOTH of those for about the same or less than the 16-35mm. *


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2011)

Axilrod said:


> Youll have the same field of view as the 16-35mm on a full frame camera, so it'll be ultra wide and you'll have a ton of fun with it I promise.



Not really. 11-16mm on APS-C is equivalent to 17.5-25.5mm on FF, so the 16-35mm is a little wider and considerably longer. 10-22mm on APS-C is equivalent to 16-35mm on FF.


----------



## ianhar (Nov 13, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Youll have the same field of view as the 16-35mm on a full frame camera, so it'll be ultra wide and you'll have a ton of fun with it I promise.
> ...



When i buy the tokina 11-16 earlier this year it was between the tokina or canon 10-22. I choose the former for the constan aperture. Both lens is sharp however tokina suffer badly from qc. Its better to buy it from a place where you could replace it rather than fixing it. 

The shorter focal length is never been a problem to me. Since i used a lot of prime i consider the tokina to be a prime lens too. 

I think the tokina has more solid built quality than canon 10-22. 

Just my 2cent on 11-16


----------



## branden (Nov 14, 2011)

How is the color rendition on the 16-35L II?

Most reviews brush very quickly over this point, since I imagine it's difficult to test for. But has anyone noticed any issues with flat, bland, or washed out colors with this lens? How is it compared to the (ridiculously good) Zeiss 21mm?

Rich coloring is important to me. As an example, using the EFS 18-135mm lens, I've noticed very washed out, tinted-towards-blue-in-a-bad-way results in certain situations, whereas (unfair comparison) the 24L2 on the same body creates nice results. 

I'm shooting both crop and full-frame, if that's important.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2011)

I can't compare to the Zeiss lens you mention - I've got over $100K in Zeiss 'glass' at my disposal, but it's all in microscope objectives. But, color rendition with the 16-35mm is very nice. That's one area where it's better than the EF-S 17-55mm on the 7D. Generally, L lenses deliver good color; it's a notable difference between the 85L and the 85/1.8, though otherwise the latter compares very well to the L (axial CA and obviously the wider aperture notwithstanding).


----------



## JR (Nov 15, 2011)

Just picking up on the last 2 post here so not specific to the 16-35mm L II per say but I can say that all the "L" glass I have tried and own all have one thing in common: color rendition is amazing compared to non-L lens.

I dont own the 16-35mm L yet, but i am sure its color rendition is truthful to the L series...


----------



## branden (Nov 15, 2011)

Thank you for the info. I know the 18-135mm lens is in a different class than all the other optics in the discussion, the information here is helpful.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Nov 15, 2011)

Without having read any other the other replies I just want to mention that I am loving the 16-35mm L II USM. Despite having 6 other L's I still do take a large portion with the 16-35mm II which I find wide enough in 98% of the cases using it on a 7D.


----------



## acoll123 (Nov 15, 2011)

Michael_pfh said:


> Without having read any other the other replies I just want to mention that I am loving the 16-35mm L II USM. Despite having 6 other L's I still do take a large portion with the 16-35mm II which I find wide enough in 98% of the cases using it on a 7D.



How often do you use your 24 1.4? I have the 16-35 as well and wondered if I would use the 24 with the wider aperture if I had it.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Nov 15, 2011)

As for the 24 1.4 I hardly use it during daytime (probably I just haven't gotten used to the shallow depth of field in a wide-angle pic (which is not that wide on a 7D). I use the 24 1.4L as a walk around lense that stays on my cam in the evening/at night and also when having dinners and get togethers with friends as it allows nice indoors pics without a flash. I must add that the 85 1.2L is even better for taking pics in dim light (as the additional f-stop allows it to let twice as much light in as the 24 1.4L), however, on an APS-C sensor the 85 1.2L is a 136mm lense which limits its use. On the 5DMk3 the 85 1.2L will probably become my night time walk around lense... ;-)


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 15, 2011)

Michael_pfh said:


> As for the 24 1.4 I hardly use it during daytime (probably I just haven't gotten used to the shallow depth of field in a wide-angle pic (which is not that wide on a 7D). I use the 24 1.4L as a walk around lense that stays on my cam in the evening/at night and also when having dinners and get togethers with friends as it allows nice indoors pics without a flash. I must add that the 85 1.2L is even better for taking pics in dim light (as the additional f-stop allows it to let twice as much light in as the 24 1.4L), however, on an APS-C sensor the 85 1.2L is a 136mm lense which limits its use. On the 5DMk3 the 85 1.2L will probably become my night time walk around lense... ;-)



isn't 1.2 only half a stop faster than 1.4?


----------



## Michael_pfh (Nov 15, 2011)

Guess you are right, I am not an expert. However, I do notice the difference, the 85 1.2L works better in low light, at least on my cam.


----------



## decltype (Nov 16, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> Michael_pfh said:
> 
> 
> > As for the 24 1.4 I hardly use it during daytime (probably I just haven't gotten used to the shallow depth of field in a wide-angle pic (which is not that wide on a 7D). I use the 24 1.4L as a walk around lense that stays on my cam in the evening/at night and also when having dinners and get togethers with friends as it allows nice indoors pics without a flash. I must add that the 85 1.2L is even better for taking pics in dim light (as the additional f-stop allows it to let twice as much light in as the 24 1.4L), however, on an APS-C sensor the 85 1.2L is a 136mm lense which limits its use. On the 5DMk3 the 85 1.2L will probably become my night time walk around lense... ;-)
> ...



Actually, it's one third of a stop faster. Considering that the 24 can be hand-held at slower shutter speeds than the 85, it could be said to be more low-light capable in situations that do not require a high shutter speed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

decltype said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > isn't 1.2 only half a stop faster than 1.4?
> ...



_Actually_, it's both, or if you prefer, neither. On the half-stop scale, f/1.2 is 1/2-stop wider than f/1.4, but on the 1/3 stop scale, f/1.2 is 1/3-stop wider than f/1.4. See the wikipedia page on f/stops. 

Mathematically, f/1.2 really is closest to a 1/2-stop, since 21/2Ã—0.5 = 1.1892), whereas 22/3Ã—0.5 = 1.2599, which personally I'd round to f/1.3.

Of course, while the difference is meaningful in terms of depth of field, and in terms of the total amount of light reaching the sensor, in terms of the actual amount of light _being recorded_ by the sensor, it's essentially a moot point. The only difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is really how much of a *stealth ISO boost* the camera applies to compensate for the fact that at apertures that wide, the additional light is at an angle too oblique for the sensor to detect (i.e. at f/1.2, the camera is adding 1/3 to over 1/2 of a stop to the ISO speed, but not reporting that gain in the EXIF).


----------



## Meh (Nov 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> decltype said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Really? That's it, I've had it. Bring back film!


----------



## ferdi (Nov 16, 2011)

Actually, that would only be true if the 1.2 was really 1.2 and the 1.4 was really 1.4.


----------



## psycho5 (Nov 16, 2011)

the 16-35ii is IMHO, the best "walkaround" for the 1.6x crop bodies. Like a lot of new people getting ready to expand their choice of lenses, I listened to the forum photo gods and bought the Tokina 11-16. It was only after using a friends 16-35ii that I sold the tokina and spent an extra grand on the 16-35ii. 

Yes, the Tokina is a good lens but the zoom range is rather useless... When I did have this lens, I left the zoom at 15mm and treated it as a 15mm 2.8 prime.

As someone who has owned both lenses, the 16-35ii is by far more useful and in my experience, produces better colors, sharper, and can handle Lens flare so much better than the $700 Tokina. Today, I always reach for the 16-35 for everyday shooting with the 60D and once the 5Diii comes out, the lens will remain useful.

If you are on a budget, the 17-40 is not too much more than the Tokina. Trust me, USM alone is worth the extra investment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

psycho5 said:


> the 16-35ii is IMHO, the best "walkaround" for the 1.6x crop bodies.



Personally, I think that title goes to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's got a more useful focal range (wide to short tele, vs. wide to normal, and the latter doesn't really fit my definition of a salkaround lens), it has IS, and it's sharper than the 16-35 L II when both are used on the same crop body.

Only reasons I can see for the 16-35mm II are if you require weather resistance (i.e. you have a 7D - and the OP has a T1i/500D), if you are planning on getting a FF body in the very near future, or you have both FF and APS-C and want to use the lens on both (in my case, I do have both FF and APS-C, and I have the 16-35mm II, but I kept the 17-55mm because it's a better lens on my 7D).


----------



## psycho5 (Nov 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> psycho5 said:
> 
> 
> > the 16-35ii is IMHO, the best "walkaround" for the 1.6x crop bodies.
> ...



This topic led me to start a new post... and I would agree with you if the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS was an L lens, built like it could last a long time and was weather sealed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

psycho5 said:


> This topic led me to start a new post... and I would agree with you if the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS was an L lens, built like it could last a long time and was weather sealed.



It delivers L-series equivalent optical performance, with a build quality that is matched to the xxD bodies. The build-quality of L-series lenses is matched to 1-series bodies. 

If build quality is most important to you, then the 16-35mm L II is a better choice. Personally, I think optical quality is most important - the image is what matters, which is why I use the 17-55mm on my 7D.


----------



## Crapking (Nov 17, 2011)

Here's few shots if you like....JPEG right out of the camera (minimal, no PP) except the B/W which I simply desaturated b/c of horrible gym lighting angle and no time to properly process

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/xqW5Q7HX/1/5356457

http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/external/9499183_5080427_125668733_Web_2/0_0_ba6751b2a2954020af863e3904b1b580_1


----------

