# Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Review - Dustin Abbott



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 11, 2016)

Hi everyone, I finished up my review of the Canon 16-35L III this week.

"_Okay. Raise your hand if you wanted/expected this lens to come with an image stabilizer? In a day when many people use DSLRs as hybrid stills/video cameras and when Canon offers camera bodies with 30 and 50 megapixels, one would think that adding IS would have been a priority, but Canon has elected otherwise. Tamron proved a few years ago that such a lens is possible with its 15-30mm f/2.8 VC, but it will continue as the lone option for Canon shooters that want both the large f/2.8 maximum aperture and an image stabilizer in a wide angle zoom. Take a deep breath if this was your main priority, wipe away that tear from the corner of your eye, and let’s move on. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM is not the lens where Canon marries a wide aperture with an image stabilizer, but the 16-35L III is the lens where Canon gets most of the ingredients right for building an exceptional wide angle zoom_." read more... http://bit.ly/2fy1COY

Text Review: http://bit.ly/2fy1COY | Video Review Part 1: http://bit.ly/2fkXCjD | Video Review Part 2: http://bit.ly/2fxYJgV | Image Gallery: http://bit.ly/2dKJQYC


----------



## Click (Nov 12, 2016)

Excellent review, Dustin. 8)


----------



## In-The-Dark (Nov 12, 2016)

Thank you, another great review.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 12, 2016)

Another good review Dustin. You debate my exact concerns with this lens. I had it on my shopping list, but that heavy vignetting is a turnoff, combined with the outrageous price tag (US price is cheap compared to what it cost over here). I sold my 16-35 f4L IS, because I was confident this would be the lens, but now I regret it. I also use the 11-24, but I hate the dinner plate filter size (and the weight, when travelling/hiking). Maybe I´ll just get another 16-35 f4L IS ...


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 12, 2016)

Eldar said:


> Another good review Dustin. You debate my exact concerns with this lens. I had it on my shopping list, but that heavy vignetting is a turnoff, combined with the outrageous price tag (US price is cheap compared to what it cost over here). I sold my 16-35 f4L IS, because I was confident this would be the lens, but now I regret it. I also use the 11-24, but I hate the dinner plate filter size (and the weight, when travelling/hiking). Maybe I´ll just get another 16-35 f4L IS ...



+1

A good balanced review, and a conclusion which will mirror many people. 

I think it will be interesting to see the Sigma Art 12-24 vs the 16-35 f/4 (although the Canon has IS), and then I think it comes down to how much you need f/2.8 and the IS. Lots of choices, but no clear winner


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 12, 2016)

Thanks for the awesome review Dustin!

Quick observation: the 2nd video starts with the photos of the restroom, where you show the 16-35 outperform the Tamron in the centre of the frame but the Tamron came out tops in the corners. 

If I remember correctly and forgive me if I didn't, wasn't the results slightly different for the lake shots?

PS which brand of hair gel does the Dustin use?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 12, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> Thanks for the awesome review Dustin!
> 
> Quick observation: the 2nd video starts with the photos of the restroom, where you show the 16-35 outperform the Tamron in the centre of the frame but the Tamron came out tops in the corners.
> 
> ...



You're right, though the sharpness in the infinity scene was somewhat of a tossup. It's not unusual for lenses to have slightly different performance at difference focus distances. Try shooting a 50mm f/1.8 STM at infinity wide open; you'll be far less impressed than what it can do at six feet.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 12, 2016)

Eldar said:


> Another good review Dustin. You debate my exact concerns with this lens. I had it on my shopping list, but that heavy vignetting is a turnoff, combined with the outrageous price tag (US price is cheap compared to what it cost over here). I sold my 16-35 f4L IS, because I was confident this would be the lens, but now I regret it. I also use the 11-24, but I hate the dinner plate filter size (and the weight, when travelling/hiking). Maybe I´ll just get another 16-35 f4L IS ...



Yes - when I saw the MTF for the lens I was sure that I would ready to sell the Tamron and get the 16-35L III. And after using it for a month or so I do think it is the better lens in an absolute sense, but not enough to justify such a huge price increase.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 12, 2016)

Stu_bert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Another good review Dustin. You debate my exact concerns with this lens. I had it on my shopping list, but that heavy vignetting is a turnoff, combined with the outrageous price tag (US price is cheap compared to what it cost over here). I sold my 16-35 f4L IS, because I was confident this would be the lens, but now I regret it. I also use the 11-24, but I hate the dinner plate filter size (and the weight, when travelling/hiking). Maybe I´ll just get another 16-35 f4L IS ...
> ...



I've requested the Sigma be sent to me, particularly since I have the yet unreleased Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero D lens in my hands at the moment to compare it to.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 12, 2016)

Dustin, maybe your most helpful, best written review yet! Thanks very, very much.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 12, 2016)

That would be unjust comparison in my opinion. totaly different glass. Canon 11-24 F4 L is a better match and what the Sigma 12-24 A was designed and buiilt to compete with.



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I've requested the Sigma be sent to me, particularly since I have the yet unreleased Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero D lens in my hands at the moment to compare it to.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 12, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> That would be unjust comparison in my opinion. totaly different glass. Canon 11-24 F4 L is a better match and what the Sigma 12-24 A was designed and buiilt to compete with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In terms of photographers choosing one wide-angle zoom for their quivers, not unjust at all! I agree with Dustin--it is in competition with the newest Canon.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 12, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Another good review Dustin. You debate my exact concerns with this lens. I had it on my shopping list, but that heavy vignetting is a turnoff, combined with the outrageous price tag (US price is cheap compared to what it cost over here). I sold my 16-35 f4L IS, because I was confident this would be the lens, but now I regret it. I also use the 11-24, but I hate the dinner plate filter size (and the weight, when travelling/hiking). Maybe I´ll just get another 16-35 f4L IS ...
> ...



Thank you for another insightful review, Dustin. The vignetting seems so bad that I question it's overall light gadering potential vs the 16-35 f4 L IS. I've noted, though, that the vignette of the f2.8 seems much better at 35mm, than at 16mm, and therefore it still is a little tempting. 

I find the sharpness on my 16-35 f4 L IS at 35mm to be little disappointing compared to it's wider angles, and also compared to the 24-70 f4 L IS at 35mm. If the f2.8 L III is considerably sharper at 35mm, than the 16-35 f4 LIS at 35mm, I will be more tempted by it. 

Another thing I am looking for is the difference in overall clarity and contrast. The 24-70 f2.8LII has a pop to it's images, that the 24-70 f4 L IS lacks. If it is a comparable difference between the 16-35 f4L IS and the f2.8 LIII, I would be persuaded and save up the money for an upgrade. Any insights on this from anyone who has compared these lenses head to head will be appreciated!


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 12, 2016)

Sure but Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero D lens wouldn't be that one wide-angle zoom for their quivers you were talking about. There is obviously some value in comparison of super ultra wide constant aperture ZOOM lens with huge bulbous element to ultra wide f2.8 prime lens for some readers. My opinion is that such a comparison is unfair. Sigma 12-24 F4 A lens was designed to be a direct competitor to Canon 11-24 F4 L lens and therefore should be compared to Canon 11-24 F4 L. 




YuengLinger said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > That would be unjust comparison in my opinion. totaly different glass. Canon 11-24 F4 L is a better match and what the Sigma 12-24 A was designed and buiilt to compete with.
> ...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 12, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Sure but Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero D lens wouldn't be that one wide-angle zoom for their quivers you were talking about. There is obviously some value in comparison of super ultra wide constant aperture ZOOM lens with huge bulbous element to ultra wide f2.8 prime lens for some readers. My opinion is that such a comparison is unfair. Sigma 12-24 F4 A lens was designed to be a direct competitor to Canon 11-24 F4 L lens and therefore should be compared to Canon 11-24 F4 L.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't disagree, but I happen to have the Laowa on hand at the moment.


----------



## LordofTackle (Nov 12, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Another great review, thank you for that Dustin. Also that you comment a bit more on the vignette than other sources 
I'm really torn right now whether to go for the 2.8 III or the 4 IS. IS is not as important to me, since I don't do video and I'm used to not having IS from the II and the 24-70/2.8. I also really like the ability to have 2.8 when needed.
OTOH, as Eldar said, the high price (here in Germany MRSP is 2625€!! close to 3000$) is a real turnoff, and so is the huge vignette. Choices choices....

But regarding the price, that already seem to regulate itself, since several shops decreased the price for new III already by 300€, which is pretty telling I guess, since the lens has only been available for 2-3 weeks here. (maybe Canon got to little preorders/early adopters for that price?).

*What I would like to ask:* As Larsskv pointed out, the 24-70/2.8 has a certain pop, a kind of special feeling, to its images, which I also really like. Where does the new 16-35 III stand in that regard? Especially compared to the f/4 version.

Sebastian


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 12, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Sebastian, I know what you are referring to (the new 35L II definitely has it!). I would have a hard speaking definitely on that without comparing the two side by side. It produces really great images, to be sure, but what you are describing is more of a "feel" or "taste" thing.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 12, 2016)

*Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Review - Dustin Abbot*



LordofTackle said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



I've been using the 18-35 Iii now since it was first released. IQ is stunning. Contrast and color quality is excellent. In fact for the fall foliage here I've been having to desaturate quite a bit. The vignette is not a big deal as it's easily corrected in camera or in post. 3rd party lenses cannot be corrected in camera but for the most part this should not be a deciding factor, even for Astro work (which by the way the lens performs great with stars all the way to the edges.)

Price seems to be an issue for you so if you don't need the low light capability, then go with the F4 version. The IS adds to the f4 cost but you can turn it off if you don't need it. I can't say exactly how it compares with the f2.8iii but most of the reviews say the f4 version is pretty close. A lot closer to the f2.8iii than the f2.8ii.

I was able to land a deal on the 1st week it was released so it was a little less painful. However, i Used the money saved to pick up a heliopan high transmission polarizer for it for when I do landscapes.

I think it boils down to available cash and wether or not you do low light work.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 12, 2016)

I wonder when we'll learn how much the vignetting might depend on copy variance.

For indoor events, single subject more or less centered in frame, no big impact, maybe, but for composing more towards the edges of the frame, raising shadows more than a stop is not great for skin and details...

Price is an issue when the whole point of going with 2.8 over f/4 is to get fantastic low-light performance from edge to edge--which clearly should be delivered at this price. Half the price, easier to brush off as part of the bargain.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 13, 2016)

thanks, but not interested. too big, too fat, to expensive, too mirrorslapperish. 

will not buy.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Nov 13, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Regarding that 24-70 II pop, it is amazing to me. I resisted the version II for a long time since my version I worked so well. Now I can't believe I waited so long. The 70-200 II doesn't have it. The 35mm II does. The pop is certainly due to the newest coatings. I would expect this new 16-35 version to have the coatings that will produce what you're referring to.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 13, 2016)

BLFPhoto said:


> LordofTackle said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Whether reviewers see "the pop" or not?


----------



## Bernd FMC (Nov 13, 2016)

First thanks to Dustin for his great Review(s) !



YuengLinger said:


> Whether reviewers see "the pop" or not?



I also recognized "the Pop" especially with the 35 L II - also have the 24-70 2.8 L II - not sure how to find out the Reason what it is - or discribe it to other Persons - take a Look on the Pictures : .

I am looking for an Replacement for my 17-40 - not "urgent" -but in a While ... .

Usage for Landscape including Astro - and the strong Vignette does not look promising for me in that Point.
Event and such Things where covered with the 24-70 - so 2.8 ist necessary for Low Light for me - strong Vignette make it not that much useable for this Kind of Photo´s.

Possible the right Choice for me to get an 11-24 f 4 L - as an Lens especially for (Ultra)Wide Shot´s - or an TS-E 17 because of the possibility of keystone correction - not sure at the Moment.

16-35 III is much to expensive at the Moment ( for an general Purpose UWW Lens - with such an heavy Vignette ) .

Greetings from Germany 

Bernd


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 13, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> LordofTackle said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



What I am most thankful of, in your reviews, Dustin, is that you are able to point these "feel" or "taste" things out in a very good manner, and by that give unique insights to a lens strengths, that other "tech" based reviews will never let you know. I know from my own experiences with various lenses that you have reviewed, that I can trust your opinions. 

Your ability to describe feel and taste qualities in a lens, in a trustworthy manner, sets you apart from the competition.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 13, 2016)

I think the lens hood is a major step forwards over the mkII. The hood on the mkII is a bit of a joke and completely useless. It's great to see the mkIII has a far better level of optical resolution at f2.8 and it's CA control is exceptional. The mkII's Achilles heel was CA...no question. The corner sharpness looks massively improved too, although for landscape work, even the old 16-35mk I stopped down to f13 was good enough. So wide open corner sharpness isn't that useful for landscape work, but it has its uses in other genres. The mkII was already very good in terms of flare and ghosting. Better than the 24-70IIL, surprisingly. But the mkIII takes this several steps further forwards...in fact I'd say that now the mkIII is probably one of the most flare resistant lenses in existence. It's a pity that Canon opted for the newer 16 blade aperture design, the mkII had less blades...but it's sun star was more striking. But it is what it is...and it's certainly easier to use Contre Jour. 
From an optical perspective, the f4 lenses aren't inferior at all....just a choice. It now means that the choice for f4 or f2.8 is purely size / weight / cost / aperture and no longer a point about optical quality. 
In terms of price...it's new and over priced. It will come down dramatically over the next year...although it'll never be a bargain. The f4 IS variant has already been on the market for a while and it's price has dropped significantly, which makes it even more of a bargain when compared to this new mkIII f2.8 version. 
I think the old spector of Canon weak wide lenses has been thoroughly vanquished and this lens is a sign of the quality of optics that Canon are capable of pushing out.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 13, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think the lens hood is a major step forwards over the mkII. The hood on the mkII is a bit of a joke and completely useless. It's great to see the mkIII has a far better level of optical resolution at f2.8 and it's CA control is exceptional. The mkII's Achilles heel was CA...no question. The corner sharpness looks massively improved too, although for landscape work, even the old 16-35mk I stopped down to f13 was good enough. So wide open corner sharpness isn't that useful for landscape work, but it has its uses in other genres. The mkII was already very good in terms of flare and ghosting. Better than the 24-70IIL, surprisingly. But the mkIII takes this several steps further forwards...in fact I'd say that now the mkIII is probably one of the most flare resistant lenses in existence. It's a pity that Canon opted for the newer 16 blade aperture design, the mkII had less blades...but it's sun star was more striking. But it is what it is...and it's certainly easier to use Contre Jour.
> From an optical perspective, the f4 lenses aren't inferior at all....just a choice. It now means that the choice for f4 or f2.8 is purely size / weight / cost / aperture and no longer a point about optical quality.
> In terms of price...it's new and over priced. It will come down dramatically over the next year...although it'll never be a bargain. The f4 IS variant has already been on the market for a while and it's price has dropped significantly, which makes it even more of a bargain when compared to this new mkIII f2.8 version.
> I think the old spector of Canon weak wide lenses has been thoroughly vanquished and this lens is a sign of the quality of optics that Canon are capable of pushing out.



Solid points all. The one problem with stopping down to f/13 on newer bodies with higher resolution is that you really start to take a diffraction hit. It's imperative that modern lenses be able to achieve peak sharpness across the frame by no more than f/5.6.

I think if the price was $1799 for the lens we wouldn't be debating much about this lens (though that vignette isn't great at any price. That's usually the Zeiss weakness, not so much Canon. Ironically Tamron typically does a great job with vignette and a lesser job with light transmission. I almost wonder if that isn't a worthy tradeoff, though, particularly in a wide angle lens.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 13, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the awesome review Dustin!
> ...



Ahhh!!, that's why I find my 50STM to be so sharp, I never use it at infinity, ditto my 100f2.0, rogers MTF curves slate it, but when I use mine for portraiture it's very sharp.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 25, 2016)

I have given this some more thought and decided to get one, despite my concerns of vignetting and price. My Zeiss 15mm f2.8 is a fantastic lens and I have been very happy with it. It is also widely considered the king of its focal length. It´s vignetting though, wide open, is 4 stops, which is pretty close to this one. So I decided I could live with that. Next, a dealer over here had it on black Friday sale, with a $400 discount. Looking forward to test it next week.

PS! I also got a 5DIV, with an $800 discount (didn´t need that either, but looking forward to it  )


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 25, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I have given this some more thought and decided to get one, despite my concerns of vignetting and price. My Zeiss 15mm f2.8 is a fantastic lens and I have been very happy with it. It is also widely considered the king of its focal length. It´s vignetting though, wide open, is 4 stops, which is pretty close to this one. So I decided I could live with that. Next, a dealer over here had it on black Friday sale, with a $400 discount. Looking forward to test it next week.
> 
> PS! I also got a 5DIV, with an $800 discount (didn´t need that either, but looking forward to it  )



I'm interested in your feedback on this lens (as a long term Distagon 15mm user). Great deal on the 5DIV, by the way. Enjoy!


----------



## Eldar (Nov 25, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I have given this some more thought and decided to get one, despite my concerns of vignetting and price. My Zeiss 15mm f2.8 is a fantastic lens and I have been very happy with it. It is also widely considered the king of its focal length. It´s vignetting though, wide open, is 4 stops, which is pretty close to this one. So I decided I could live with that. Next, a dealer over here had it on black Friday sale, with a $400 discount. Looking forward to test it next week.
> ...


This is pretty much the most boring time of the year, from a photography perspective, but I am looking forward to see what this lens delivers. However, I am even more eager to get my hands on the 5DIV. No time to be bored


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

*Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Review - Dustin Abbot*



East Wind Photography said:


> ...
> I've been using the 18-35 Iii now since it was first released. IQ is stunning. Contrast and color quality is excellent. In fact for the fall foliage here I've been having to desaturate quite a bit. The vignette is not a big deal as it's easily corrected in camera or in post. 3rd party lenses cannot be corrected in camera but for the most part this should not be a deciding factor, even for Astro work (which by the way the lens performs great with stars all the way to the edges.)
> ...


True, correction in camera is not important at all BUT you cannot say that vignette can be corrected easily on post for astro work. Having to raise almost 4 stops (at the corners) an already high iso (say 6400) landscape astro shot it will destroy it (the equivalent iso is 100K!). Have you ever tried that? I do not even raise corners 2 full stops in my landscape astro pics to avoid the change of color and the increased noise.

I was expecting this lens to not only replace my 14 2.8 L II and 16-35 f/4 IS but to take advantage of the combination of hood and flat front element for better protection from side lights. Now I will continue as is.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 25, 2016)

*Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Review - Dustin Abbot*



tron said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


I had the same opinion. My (by far) best wide angle lens was (is) the Zeiss 15/2.8. A fantastic lens, highly regarded by anyone who has used it and regarded as the king of astrophotography (which is not very important to me). At 2.8 it has 4 stops of vignetting and it has not bothered me at all. So I decided to go for the 16-35 f2.8L III. Time will show if it was a smart move, but I look forward to test it myself.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

*Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Review - Dustin Abbot*



Eldar said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...


I look forward to your test too


----------



## LordofTackle (Nov 25, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I had the same opinion. My (by far) best wide angle lens was (is) the Zeiss 15/2.8. A fantastic lens, highly regarded by anyone who has used it and regarded as the king of astrophotography (which is not very important to me). At 2.8 it has 4 stops of vignetting and it has not bothered me at all. So I decided to go for the 16-35 f2.8L III. Time will show if it was a smart move, but I look forward to test it myself.



+1 

OTOH, I am REALLY tempted right now to get it ASAP, as I can get it for 700€ less, so roughly 1900€!!
That's almost 30% less...for a lens that is 1-2 months old.

I went back to TDP, and actually the f/4 version is not that tempting anymore to me: it has about the same amount vignetting wide open as the f/2.8 stepped down to f/4, so no difference on that front. And you can still go to 2.8!
The IS is a nice to have but I ran around for several years on both my 16-35 and my 24-70 w/o it, so I don't really care about IS much....also I'm not much into video stuff.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> ...
> I went back to TDP, and actually the f/4 version is not that tempting anymore to me: it has about the same amount vignetting wide open as the f/2.8 stepped down to f/4, so no difference on that front. And you can still go to 2.8!
> ...


If you shoot landscapes and events OK but for astrophotography that does not apply! The alternative is not the f/4 zoom but another 2.8 uwa lens. The 700 off is nice.


----------



## LordofTackle (Nov 25, 2016)

Yep, my main use is landscape, and sometimes "events" such as birthdays and so on.

So I think for me the f/2.8 III is the better way. Although I'd like to try Astro at some point 
Jon's pictures are just too tempting


----------



## JMZawodny (Nov 26, 2016)

I'll add myself to the list of thankful readers of this review. I conclude that this is not a lens for me, primarily due to the excessive vignetting. I have the f/4 IS version and it suits my needs admirably.


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Yep, my main use is landscape, and sometimes "events" such as birthdays and so on.
> 
> So I think for me the f/2.8 III is the better way. Although I'd like to try Astro at some point
> Jon's pictures are just too tempting


Jon's pictures are fantastic!


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> I'll add myself to the list of thankful readers of this review. I conclude that this is not a lens for me, primarily due to the excessive vignetting. I have the f/4 IS version and it suits my needs admirably.


The f/4 IS is an excellent landscape lens for me. I also use it inside museums. I was hoping to consolidate 16-35 IS and 14 II but I will not. I was wishing 2 years for such a lens (I had many incidents with side lighting and a flat front element with hood could be a solution).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> I'll add myself to the list of thankful readers of this review. I conclude that this is not a lens for me...



Agree on both counts. In my case, the 24-70/2.8 is wide enough for my people/event shooting, I have two TS-E lenses in the 16-35 range for architecture, and if I really want wide, I have the 11-24/4L. 

I did have the 16-35/2.8L II, and I don't regret selling it.


----------

