# Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?



## davidrf (Jun 5, 2013)

Hello,
I have a 60D but I'm about to get a 6D, I shoot urbex and landscapes most of the times, so I like wide angle lenses. I've had a good Sigma 10-20 and now I have a great Canon 15-85.

Stepping up to full frame, the natural choice would be a Canon 16-35 L II, because i found the Sigma 12-24 too much soft. But.

But reading several opinions on the forums, I noticed that a lot of people say the 16-35 L II isn't worth that much money, and that it's not as sharp as an L lens should be. I'm sure it's sharper than a Sigma 12-24, but I'd like to have a serious sharpness betterment over the 15-85 I have right now.

What do you think? Thanks a lot!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 6, 2013)

It's a super-wide zoom lens. All super-wide lenses tend to have softness issues in the corners, with the super-wide zooms having a bit more. It does get pretty good stopped down, which if you're doing landscapes you probably are stopping down anyway (most of the time). If you absolutely need corner sharpness, go for the Canon 17/24 TS-E, or Canon 14mm.

Another thing to think about, most people aren't pixel-peeping, and you're probably not examining the corners of most photos. People tend to look more towards the center area, although it can depend on the entire photo and subject matter.

Why not go ahead and rent the 16-35 and try it out? If you don't absolutely need f/2.8, the 17-40 is a pretty competent lens for the most part. It's f/4, and you do need to stop it down a bit for nearly anything, but it's significantly cheaper if you can live with it not being as good as the 16-35 v2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2013)

Worth it to me... While its not as sharp as my 24-70 II, 70-200 II, or TS-E 24 II, it's plenty sharp. The f/2.8 comes in handy in low light.


----------



## Danielle (Jun 6, 2013)

I've used one on a 5d3 and 7d. I don't see the issue. It's a damn good lens which is very useful.

Try one if you need that focal length. It's a tough lens and its reasonably fast aperture wise. There's a reason the 16-35 mark ii is popular.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jun 6, 2013)

as it´s not really better optically then the 17-40mm f4 it´s not worth it for me, as i don´t use f2.8 much in that focal length range.

above f5.6 i see no difference.

i have them both... but only because i bought the 16-35mm II first and then i needed a second lens for my other bodys.


http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=2


----------



## RunAndGun (Jun 6, 2013)

I like it. It was the third lens I bought when I purchased my first 5DMKII back in '08. I bought the kit with the 24-105, got the 15mm fisheye a few days later(great lens), the original 70-200 2.8 L IS and then the 16-35 a few months later. I haven't checked the price on it lately and I don't remember if there was a rebate going on when I bought mine, but If I was just buying my gear now, I'd get it. If you're a W/A kind of guy, get it and start enjoying it.


----------



## CharlieB (Jun 6, 2013)

I've got the 16-35ii, and its sharp enough. You really have to consider what you're getting - 16mm is very wide, and zooming to 35mm too.

What I like, is it covers, and covers well. Built in vignetting correction in the 5dii and 7d correct the falloff nicely. There are sharper lenses out there, but to find one thats in that zoom range... nada, thats as good as it gets in the Canon world. Edges are not horrible, but do clean up with stopping down to 5.6. 

Its my go-to lens when I shoot events with the 7d with its 25-50ish equiv. That pretty much covers it for social events.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 6, 2013)

The 16-35L II 2.8 is my most used lens. YMMV

It is great inside cars, trains, buses, planes, boats.
I think it is the best general purpose wide lens available for Canon.

btw ... a lot of amazing photojournalism shots have been taken with this lens.


----------



## BL (Jun 6, 2013)

If I had to sell everything but 1 lens due to some financial tragedy, the 16-35 II would be my keeper.

Yes, it has optical shortcomings, yes it's a bit on the pricier side. But once you understand its limitations, it's simply amazing.

Rent it along with the 17-40 and see what suits you.


----------



## eml58 (Jun 6, 2013)

I have it, had the Version 1 as well, I'm not that keen on the Lens, seldom use it anymore except for Underwater Photography where the Corner distortion no longer presents an issue.

Not as Sharp as other WA L Lenses such as the 24-70f/2.8 L II (Have never tried the 17-40), it's not a cheap Lens, so for that reason alone it's a disappointment to me, What I've done in the Last 12 Months is Buy a couple of Zeiss Lenses which I now use instead of the 16-35, Currently I own the Zeiss Distagon 15f/2.8 & 25f/2, for sharpness at these Ranges Canon have nothing to compare, at all, But, this isn't the cheapest way to get WA sharpness, but it does get you the near perfect WA Lenses for any occasion, with the only downside being No Auto Focus, which in Landscape is generally not an issue as you mostly Focus in Live View.

I might suggest getting a Prime WA like the Zeiss 15 then later when you have the Money, go to the 24-70f/2.8 II, two amazing Lenses.

Someone in an earlier Post suggested Renting first, if that's an option I would say this is always excellent advise, then you can Try before you buy, win win.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 6, 2013)

Since you have a 60D, don't even consider the 16-35L, get a 17-55 if you need f/2.8. It is much better on FF than a crop. The 17-40L is ok but the 17-55 beats it handily. The 17-40L is best at small apertures. If you can find a used one for under $500, its ok.
You mentioned having the 15-85. Unless you need a AF adjustment, it should be just fine.


----------



## RGF (Jun 6, 2013)

I often skip from from 24 (24-70) to 14. I do occasionally use the 16-35 but often go as wide as I can - hence the tendency to go with the 14


----------



## Meh (Jun 6, 2013)

Yes, it is worth every penny. Fair comment above though that if you're only shooting stopped down anyway the 17-40 is cheaper.


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 6, 2013)

I've had a 17-40 since the year they came out ... first on crop-sensor bodies, and now on full frame for the past 6 years.

My copy is satisfactorily sharp, and I'm very pleased with the purchase. It was my walk-around lens in my crop-sensor days, and doesn't get as much use now, but I would never part with it ... it's great for tight interiors and wide landscapes.

I've never been tempted to upgrade to either of the 16-35's.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 6, 2013)

Not GREAT and not bad :-\

As an owner of 16-35 II, I'm ok with this lens. If you plan to shoot f8 - f11, the 17-40mm f4 might be a better choice in term of $.

If Canon comes out mark III or 12-24mm with IQ as good as Nikon or better, I'll drop this lens in heart beat.


----------



## replay0 (Jun 6, 2013)

I've never really been impressed with my 16-35 II, and rarely use it. It's not bad, but it's not good either. I ended up falling back on my 24-70 I most of the time, and now that I have the 24-70 II (sold ver. I), I just don't see the value of the 16-35 II. To make up for the loss of a slightly wider angle, I sometimes just stitch photos together from my 24-70 II for a wider pano look.


----------



## cervantes (Jun 6, 2013)

The 16-35II is not a very spectacular lens - it's not as sharp as other L's (unless you stop down to f11) and you need some creativity and skill to make cool shots with it.

But a couple of days ago there was a post "If you could have just three lenses what would they be?" and surprisingly the 16-35 was on nearly everyone's list (including mine) so I guess it's doing something right.

It is simply the the ultra-wide of choice.


----------



## Subtas (Jun 6, 2013)

You can consider the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 .


----------



## killswitch (Jun 6, 2013)

I recently bought the Canon 16-35 II, and had the opportunity to run it through it's paces. My 16-35 II is sharp in the center when stopped down, and I wish the mid frame was as sharp or at least close to the center sharpness. But it's still pretty good stopped down. Corners did not bother me much, but that's just me. However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person. I also felt that my copy of the lens performed better at 35mm than at 16mm. By better I mean, images felt much crisper at 35mm. Would I drop this lens for something else? Yes, only if a 16-35 MKIII with performance as good as the recent 24-70 MKII is ever made. But that's just wishful thinking. If sunstars aren't your thing and you have no use of f2.8, then go for 17-40. My 2 cents.


----------



## TommyLee (Jun 6, 2013)

I had the 10-22 canon on crop sensors...loved it

thren got the 16-35 II when I moved to 5D2...
\
loved it.. it was very good...still have it with 5D3...
but I got the 14L II and love it more..

the 16-35 is still useful when I have a small kit ...
like a 16-35 and a 70-200 ...or maybe just with a 100L macro..
the zoom covers toward normal..

but for me if I want the best..I use the 14L II..
fits nicely below the 24-105 (or 24-70 II) ...or just a great prime like the 35 sigma...maybe add a 135 f2L...

14mm is wonderful..
I guess 50% more for that one..

the 16-35 actually has lower chromatics/fringing than the 14L II...this is all correctable
14L sharper...over all...and to the edges...for sure

is 16-35 worth it ....yes...pay attention to your copy to make sure it is good...
but...it IS worth it - IMO

TOM


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jun 6, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Since you have a 60D, don't even consider the 16-35L, get a 17-55 if you need f/2.8. It is much better on FF than a crop.



huh?
that reads as if you advice to use the 17-55mm f2.8 on a FF body.

from a image quality point of view the 16-35mm performs better on a Crop then on a FF body.
because the not so good borders are out of the image circle on a Crop body.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 6, 2013)

I've used my 16-35IIL so much, it's one of my heavy use lenses. It's the only lens I've ever had to replace the front element on. I've had a number of ultra wides over the years and the 16-35IIL is the best of the lot. While it's not a modern lens and could do with some serious upgrading, it's still the most versatile ultra wide available on the Canon mount.
Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 dii. A sharp lens, but flare control was apalling and the distortion was the worst I've ever seen in a lens. 
Sigma 12-24 HSM, an odd lens. Hard to put filters and mine has awful corners with any aperture bigger than f11....but that angle of view is amazing and it's the most corrected lens for angular distortion I've ever seen. 
Canon 17-40L, it's a lovely lens. Relativly cheap, sharp enough and very versatile. I only sold mine because I needed the f2.8 aperture.
Canon ef 16-35IIL, while far from perfect it's the most versatile ultra wide lens there is. Great colours and contrast, nice sunstars, epic build.
Once upon a time ultra wides were the re-mit of pro photographers and considered a niche lens. These days, everyone's got one...but one questions why? Many sit on shelves gathering dust because the 24mm end on most zooms is usually wide enough for most uses. I think this lens get a lot of unfair critisim. My advise is to stop looking for optical perfection and get out there and use it.


----------



## davidrf (Jun 6, 2013)

Thanks a lot for all the kind answers... I think I'll try to go for a good used 16-35L II, if I can find one! Right now I'd prefer not to spend over 1000$ (or €, in my case).

But maybe I will give a look to the Tokina 16-28 too... I didn't know anything about this lens, and the reviews seem very favourable.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 6, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I've used my 16-35IIL so much, it's one of my heavy use lenses. It's the only lens I've ever had to replace the front element on. I've had a number of ultra wides over the years and the 16-35IIL is the best of the lot. While it's not a modern lens and could do with some serious upgrading, it's still the most versatile ultra wide available on the Canon mount.
> Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 dii. A sharp lens, but flare control was apalling and the distortion was the worst I've ever seen in a lens.
> Sigma 12-24 HSM, an odd lens. Hard to put filters and mine has awful corners with any aperture bigger than f11....but that angle of view is amazing and it's the most corrected lens for angular distortion I've ever seen.
> Canon 17-40L, it's a lovely lens. Relativly cheap, sharp enough and very versatile. I only sold mine because I needed the f2.8 aperture.
> ...



Nice pictures.


----------



## serendipidy (Jun 6, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I've used my 16-35IIL so much, it's one of my heavy use lenses. It's the only lens I've ever had to replace the front element on. I've had a number of ultra wides over the years and the 16-35IIL is the best of the lot. While it's not a modern lens and could do with some serious upgrading, it's still the most versatile ultra wide available on the Canon mount.
> Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 dii. A sharp lens, but flare control was apalling and the distortion was the worst I've ever seen in a lens.
> Sigma 12-24 HSM, an odd lens. Hard to put filters and mine has awful corners with any aperture bigger than f11....but that angle of view is amazing and it's the most corrected lens for angular distortion I've ever seen.
> Canon 17-40L, it's a lovely lens. Relativly cheap, sharp enough and very versatile. I only sold mine because I needed the f2.8 aperture.
> ...



Simply gorgeous!


----------



## Invertalon (Jun 6, 2013)

I have a hard time when I think of buying this lens because the 17-40 is half the price and the same IQ/build... Just with f/4 vs. f/2.8... For an UWA, I stop them down anyway, so the f/2.8 although nice at times, is not worth double the price to me.

I really love the 17-40 though.


----------



## BL (Jun 7, 2013)

killswitch said:


> However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person.



this. 

why i chose the 16-35 II over the 17-40, above and beyond the 2.8 thing since i shoot landscapes


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 7, 2013)

I know most people use the 16-35 for landscapes, but I used it on a 7D (had the same view as a 24-56mm) for event work for a couple years and LOVED the combo. On a crop body it's incredibly sharp...you don't lose the corners. You also don't care as much because most of what you're shooting is around the middle.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2013)

BL said:


> killswitch said:
> 
> 
> > However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person.
> ...



Yes, I like the sunstars with the 16-35L II. But, can we see some examples of the not-as-nice ones from the 17-40?

Here's one more from the 16-35L II...


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2013)

replay0 said:


> I've never really been impressed with my 16-35 II, and rarely use it. It's not bad, but it's not good either. I ended up falling back on my 24-70 I most of the time, and now that I have the 24-70 II (sold ver. I), I just don't see the value of the 16-35 II. To make up for the loss of a slightly wider angle, I sometimes just stitch photos together from my 24-70 II for a wider pano look.



Me too exactly.


----------



## killswitch (Jun 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> BL said:
> 
> 
> > killswitch said:
> ...



17-40 sunstars examples
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nblain/8916365476/#in/pool-17-40ff/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8970694376/#in/pool-17-40ff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/quichbill/8628416467/#in/pool-17-40ff

I kind of like this one though: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoops510/8946512922/#in/pool-17-40ff


----------



## BL (Jun 7, 2013)

isn't it really interesting how the 17-40 is exhibiting both 8 point and 14 point stars?

anyone know how that's possible?

*EDIT: oh wait, the first image is the 24-105 based on exif
*


----------



## killswitch (Jun 7, 2013)

BL said:


> isn't it really interesting how the 17-40 is exhibiting both 8 point and 14 point stars?
> 
> anyone know how that's possible?
> 
> ...



Lol, good catch. Thanks for the heads up. That photo was submitted to the 17-40L group by the user, should have double checked the exif. Thanks. >_< 

Edit: I have removed the link to this photo. Thanks again.


----------



## davidrf (Jun 7, 2013)

The sunstars with the 16-35 are among the best I've ever seen on any lens.


----------



## BL (Jun 7, 2013)

even if (when) canon releases a 14-24, i'll stick with this lens as my primary UWA. 

24-35 is just too useful a range to give up w/o changing lenses, and i'm skeptical as to whether the new 14-24 would even have filter threads, or at least be a size matching the set i already own.

now if canon decided to release a mkIII (highly doubtful anytime in the near futuer) with improved corners at 2.8-5.6 and 35mm that wasn't soft in the center at 2.8, i would be overwhelmed with happiness ;D


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 7, 2013)

davidrf said:


> Thanks a lot for all the kind answers... I think I'll try to go for a good used 16-35L II, if I can find one! Right now I'd prefer not to spend over 1000$ (or €, in my case).
> 
> But maybe I will give a look to the Tokina 16-28 too... I didn't know anything about this lens, and the reviews seem very favourable.



Used prices will probably be closer to the $1200-1300 range...I picked up mine used from adorama...and...what is it doing...it is mounted on my mk3 right now!


----------



## TM (Jun 8, 2013)

It's worth it for me because of the f2.8 and versatility of zoom. It's sharp enough but certainly is not the sharpest wide lens, particularly mid-frame to the edges. If I want razor sharp for landscapes, I'll reach for my 24mm TSE II or 24-70mm f2.8II, if the ultra wide end isn't needed.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 8, 2013)

BL said:


> even if (when) canon releases a 14-24, i'll stick with this lens as my primary UWA.
> 
> 24-35 is just too useful a range to give up w/o changing lenses, and i'm skeptical as to whether the new 14-24 would even have filter threads, or at least be a size matching the set i already own.
> 
> now if canon decided to release a mkIII (highly doubtful anytime in the near futuer) with improved corners at 2.8-5.6 and 35mm that wasn't soft in the center at 2.8, i would be overwhelmed with happiness ;D



+1

This lens does a great juggling act between image quality, versatility, and the limits of lens technology. That said, I agree that image quality was where the compromise was made with this lens. This lens has an incredible focal range, it's light, and it's reasonably priced for what you get. But it's not super sharp. And corners are often soft, distorted, and full of fringing.

Like many folks here, I would prefer a 14-24mm with improved IQ. That said, If I could have only two lenses, the 16-35mm would be high on that list.


----------



## davidrf (Jun 8, 2013)

I've found a guy who sells a 16-35L II with residual warranty until next november at 900€. The lowest price for the new is 1250€: I think I'll give this used lens a try and maybe I'll buy it!


----------



## wayno (Jun 8, 2013)

davidrf said:


> The sunstars with the 16-35 are among the best I've ever seen on any lens.



You should see the sun stars on the 24-70ii, if that's the case (if you haven't already). At f8 they're remarkable.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 8, 2013)

wayno said:


> davidrf said:
> 
> 
> > The sunstars with the 16-35 are among the best I've ever seen on any lens.
> ...



Mid afternoon. crop nearly 60%. 5D III + 24-70 II F7


----------



## Click (Jun 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Mid afternoon. crop nearly 60%. 5D III + 24-70 II F7



That's a great shot. I like the angle that you took this shot.


----------



## davidrf (Jun 9, 2013)

Hey, could someone please help me determine the production date of this lens? It's the 16-35L II I'm about to buy used, but I can't figure how to read the code:






link: http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/697/mg0012w.jpg

Thanks a lot!


----------



## iMagic (Jun 9, 2013)

davidrf said:


> Hey, could someone please help me determine the production date of this lens? It's the 16-35L II I'm about to buy used, but I can't figure how to read the code:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Google. Canon lens date code and select the first hit.


----------



## Raddy (Jun 9, 2013)

davidrf said:


> Hey, could someone please help me determine the production date of this lens? It's the 16-35L II I'm about to buy used, but I can't figure how to read the code:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems the date code on this lens is: UA0810 (?)

According to http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx this lens was produced August 2012 or even 1986. ;-)


----------



## davidrf (Jun 9, 2013)

I googled but a bunch of pages I found were confusing. On the Digital-Picture page everything is clearer... 

thanks a lot, so it's a 2012


----------



## wayno (Jun 9, 2013)

Speaking again of sunstars/starbursts, I've always liked the tight glow of the 17-40 f8 stars and whilst the 24-70 II f8 stars look amazing, they're very, very distinctive and tend to stick out of an image more than the atmospheric glow exhibuted by the 17-40. Coming from a 10-22 originally, the starbursts on that we're quite messy in comparison to both of the above, with the bursts usually accompanied by dollops of off-centre flare and sometimes specular mini flares.


----------



## davidrf (Jun 9, 2013)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jzpwm62lnja0gqk/ocWBSZ3UgF/_MG_0014.cr2
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jzpwm62lnja0gqk/m7g_93WQbF/_MG_0015.cr2

Could someone please download these two raws and thell me what you think about it? They are shot with a 5D mk2. Is it me or there's a bit much softness on the borders, and a strange noise that at 200 ISO should not be there? Thanks a lot!


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 10, 2013)

wayno said:


> Speaking again of sunstars/starbursts, I've always liked the tight glow of the 17-40 f8 stars and whilst the 24-70 II f8 stars look amazing, they're very, very distinctive and tend to stick out of an image more than the atmospheric glow exhibuted by the 17-40. Coming from a 10-22 originally, the starbursts on that we're quite messy in comparison to both of the above, with the bursts usually accompanied by dollops of off-centre flare and sometimes specular mini flares.



To each his/her own. I find the stars distracting and the only way to reduce them is to open up the aperture. I think people like them for the same reason people like heart-shaped bokeh: novelty.


----------



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Jun 14, 2013)

The short answer is: no.


----------

