# Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 11, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>New Review

</strong>Our review of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II has been posted. Justin was eager to know whether or not it was worth the money over the very good EF 17-40 f/4L.</p>
<p>For the type of event work Justin does, it looks like he does think it’s better. Although I’d be less inclined to recommend it over its cheaper cousin if you’re primarily shooting landscape. The corner softness on the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II isn’t any better than the EF 17-40 f/4L, the filter size difference could also be an issue for some people. However, if you need that stop of light, the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II is really your only choice in the Canon lineup.</p>
<p><strong>Says Justin

</strong><em>“The 16-35mm f/2.8 L II beats my 17-40 f/4L in all aspects hands-down, except for cost. While I won’t find myself making the upgrade anytime soon, I did find the superior optics and faster aperture a boon in many situations I was in while working with the 16-35. The weight difference became less significant, and I actually mistook one lens for the other while packing my kit one day.”<strong>

</strong></em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Buy the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II Lens</strong>

B&H Photo <A HREF="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html?BI=2466&KBID=3296&kwid=pricewatch-justin&sid=pricewatch-justin">$1499.00</A> | Amazon <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000NP46K2/crpwjustin-20">$1498.89</A> | Adorama <A HREF="http://www.adorama.com/CA16352U.html?kbid=64393&sub=pricewatch-justin&emailprice=t">$1499.00</A></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 11, 2013)

More than the review I liked the posted pics.


----------



## infared (Jun 11, 2013)

Well-balanced, real review. Thanks Justin. I also like how you throw in you personal biases (your 24 TSE sidebar), it let's us know your approach to shooting and why "you" may or may not like something about a lens.
It's interesting how we photographers all have our own needs, which evolve over time.
I've owned both lenses, 17-40mm & the 16-35mm (which I still own...but would kick to the curb if Canon ever delivers a 14-24mm like the Nikon! LOL!)....I only owned the 17-40mm for about 2 weeks (it was the 1st lens that I had purchased after my kit 24-105 that came on my 5DII). 
The one thing that really bothered me immediately about the 17-40mm (something I feel that Justin missed), was the "short throw" on the wide end of the zoom ring..say from 17-24mm. There is almost no throw. It feels truncated and abrupt...so that when zooming to the wide end I had no latitude to adjust my field of view. That REALLY bother "me". The lens did not seem well-balanced because of that factor. Also, I found the softness at f/4 to be disappointing. I ended up shipping the lens back to the seller for a full return of purchase price (something I have never done since with an L lens), and purchasing the 16-35mm L II. Although I gulped on the price, as Justin reports, I found it to be a better lens in every way and I never looked back, (my retirement fund may have,though :-\).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 11, 2013)

Thanks for the review, Justin. I have the 17-40L in my kit, and, it is a fine lens when stopped down. It isn't very impressive wide open, to be sure. I watch ultrawides constantly for an improvement, but, truthfully, Canon isn't exactly overwhelmed with quality UWA's. I think I might move to a Zeiss prime in the future, but, for now, the 17-40L does the trick.


----------



## messus (Jun 11, 2013)

The 16-35 2.8 L is way past replacment date! (as well as the 14mm 2.8 II and the 24mm 1.4 II)

Reading this review makes me loose faith in the person writing it!

When you buy a 2.8 lens, you buy it to be usefull wide open in low-lit scenes.
Wide open, the 16-35 2.8 II is suffering from severe CA and Coma, in particular in the corners, not to mention the vignetting and corner softness.

It is disrespectful of Canon to launch the 1D-X, the 5D-3 without a new optically competitive wide angle lens to go with it. Canon seem to have forgotten their wide angle department, focusing only on tele-lenses and cinema-lenses. 

I have had the 16-35 II, sold it and replaced it with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14. The Canon 16-35 is nowhere close optically to these lenses. The only advantage the 16-35 holds is the autofocus. But still, when taking the price into consideration makes you wanna laugh! 

Canon, look at the Nikon 14-24, and get your fingers out of your **** !!


----------



## davidrf (Jun 11, 2013)

Messus: how much did you pay for the adapter?


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 11, 2013)

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the one in the Reviews section?




Meesus, feeling better now? 8)


----------



## Ricku (Jun 12, 2013)

I've used both the 17-40 and 16-35, side by side with the Nikon 14-24 and to be honest, they both pale in comparison to the 14-24.

I'm using Samyang 14 and Zeiss 21 while waiting for Canon to produce a sharp UWA-zoom lens.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 12, 2013)

The 16-35mm f/2.8 is my most used lens. I have no complaints about it, and the f/2.8 came in very handy in the Mammoth Caves last weekend.


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 12, 2013)

messus said:


> The 16-35 2.8 L is way past replacment date! (as well as the 14mm 2.8 II and the 24mm 1.4 II)
> 
> Reading this review makes me loose faith in the person writing it!
> 
> ...


+100000000000000000000000000000000000000


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 12, 2013)

I agree with the sentiment here: Canon's UWA offerings are kind of a joke. I rented the 16-35 and found the corners unacceptable.

I thought about buying a Nikon 14-24 and an adapter.

But, knowing my luck, as soon as I do that Canon will release a 14-24!

Considering a Sam/Rok/Bow 14 f/2.8, how can you go wrong for that price?


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jun 13, 2013)

I had a 16-35II for 2 years. Corners unacceptable, even at f8.
Sold it, bought the first non- Canon- glass after 30 years, now I am happy.


----------



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Jun 14, 2013)

Pass on this lens. Save your money. Invest in the 17mm tse. Using the 16-35...I was noticing how often I was stuck on 16mm. The softness is unacceptable (for me).


----------



## Etienne (Jun 16, 2013)

There's a reason why so many award-winning photojournalism shots are made with this lens: it is extremely versatile.

Sure it can be soft at 2.8
You don't have to use it 2.8 for everything, but 2.8 is available when needed.
It's pretty good at f/4 and 5.6 and above it's quite good.
You can shoot directly into the sun, and get a decent picture. Try that with the Nikon 14-24 or the Tokina 11-16 (on APS-C). It's almost impossible to avoid a direct light source when using UW lenses.
It's my most frequently used lens, and the best option for UW zoom for canon FF.
I love mine and wont give it up unless Canon releases a version III that is significantly better.
I would even take a 18-28 2.8 if it could be sharper, smaller, and lighter, but a UW prime is too limiting for my taste.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 17, 2013)

Etienne said:


> You can shoot directly into the sun, and get a decent picture. Try that with the Nikon 14-24 or the Tokina 11-16 (on APS-C). It's almost impossible to avoid a direct light source when using UW lenses.


+1 ... here's one made with the EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II (an on-camera HDR image) on 5D MK III, with the lens directly pointed at the sun, without using a lens hood.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 26, 2013)

I don't know why some of you complain about corner softness wide open. Do you have any scenario that requires sharp corners using f2.8 except astro, which is the nichest of the niche use? Or 'hand hold landscape'? If you want that, you might as well just get a P&S for the job.

And 24L II is due for an update? Oh please, just cut it.

When you shoot at f1.4, or f2.8 for that matter, you want your point of interest to be sharp and in focus, and you want your background, that includes the corner, to fade away to reinforce the attention of the topic. And how many of you puts your topic object in the corner and shoot wide open? Let say 0.0001%? And in normal usage, wide open in center / mid-frame, 24L II is the sharpest f1.4 lens I've ever used.

To me the versatility of 16-35 trunces the bulb head 14-24. The useful 35mm f2.8 setting (not many UWA offers that), the flare resistance as mentioned above, the ability to take filter are all better. Which includes putting on a UV filter and don't worry about using it in harsh conditions. I've seen so many 14-24 owners bought the lens, gets excited, then put it in storage because they don't want to make undue damage to the bulb head front element. How sad.

Even if Canon comes up with a bulb head 14-24 I'm sure I won't be interested. By switching my 16-35 to a 14-24 I will have to buy a separate 35mm lens, double dent in the wallet!


----------

