# 16-35 II vs what?



## keithfullermusic (Mar 20, 2014)

I'm looking for a wide angle for my 5diii, but I'm not overwhelmed with the 16-35. Is there anything out there that compares? I need 2.8, auto-focus, and I'd prefer the zoom capabilities. Thanks.


----------



## tron (Mar 21, 2014)

Can you please elaborate? What exactly you don't like? 

Can you please mention <focal length>/<aperture>/<center or corner> combinations ?

I am asking because having sold my version *I* 16-35 I am thinking about version *II*...

I have seen comparisons from a technical site but I would like an opinion subjective as it may is...


----------



## tron (Mar 21, 2014)

I am afraid you ask too much: 2.8, Auto focus, Zoom. 

I should add that I use some ultra wide lenses but they do not fall under your preferences. 

But still I can mention them: TS-E 17mm. Well it is not a 2.8 it is not AF and it is not a zoom.
But it is the ultimate architecture lens and a very sharp one across the frame.

Zeiss 21mm 2.8: At least it is a 2.8 lens. It is not AF but I observed that I can focus manually easily. Not a zoom either.
It is very sharp across the frame.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 21, 2014)

No, not really, which is why it sells pretty well even though it falls short of the other members of the f/2.8 zoom trinity. The 16-35 II is probably the best option for your line of work because of its focal length versatility. Perhaps the 14L II and 24-70 II would complement your 20 f/2.8 better if you're willing to swap lenses.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 21, 2014)

if you can live without the f2.8 the EOS-M and 11-22 IS STM is F***ing amazing... really
I am loving having an UWA with quality IS, can easily shoot at 1/5 sec and get sharp images handheld and even slower taking more care.

I still wont give up my 16-35 but the eos-m and 11-22 gets used alot more now because i can just pop it in my pocket
I've also noticed the CPL on the 11-22 gives much smoother sky rendering than the 16-35 does
if you need the 2.8 for action then there is no better option currently


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 21, 2014)

tron said:


> ...
> 
> Zeiss 21mm 2.8: At least it is a 2.8 lens. It is not AF but I observed that I can focus manually easily. Not a zoom either.
> It is very sharp across the frame.



I find the AF confirmation zone is pretty big for the Z21 f/2.8 using phase detect. Is that your experience as well? Big enough (between beeps) that the subject could be out of critical focus.


----------



## tron (Mar 21, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


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


I used it for landscapes and astrophotography. Of course not all photos were focused at infinity but I observed I had no problem. But I attribute this to the lens being ultra wide.


----------



## drjlo (Mar 21, 2014)

I tried the 16-35 II and 17-40, and really, they are pretty good, way better than what one would guess by reading comments by people who say they are "cr&&&" or "unusable." They can produce very good results, especially when one applies appropriate type and amount of lens correction that are readily available. 

I also believe many people who think they "need" f/2.8 in wide angle probably don't. Perhaps if you shoot a lot of real-estate interior shots in dim lighting, but then again, proper lighting and tripods should resolve that. 

The 17-40 I tried was of recent build, and I don't understand why people say it's much worse than 16-35; maybe the older productions were worse? ???

If one must produce and sell wide angle photo's in large print sizes with absolutely perfect corners, then maybe this Canon "Year of the lens" thing will work out in the way of a new Canon 14-24 or 16-35 Mk III..


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 21, 2014)

tron said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I was trying it for an environmental portrait so the subject wasn't that far away...


----------



## abcde12345 (Mar 21, 2014)

I myself am looking at this sector, and I can tell you, hoo boy it's hard. The woes of being on the Canon side and not on Nikon. They have an AF chip for Samyang 14mm F2.8 AND a legendary 14-24mm F2.8! This is long overdue! Anyway, as far as I've come down to it, you will want to look at Tokina 16-28mm F2.8. I'm planning to buy one myself, but I don't think sharpness is an issue for Tokina. The bulbous element will be the killer though, and I'm pretty sad about that. =<


----------



## jeanluc (Mar 21, 2014)

I have the 16-35, and do landscapes for the most part, largest prints 20 x 42 or so. The 16-35 is a great lens, and would have no reservation about it. If either a 16-35 III or a 14-24 come out, they will cost a lot more (16-35 on sale at B and H right now) for what can only be incremental improvement. Also, I have used the Nikon 14-24, which is a great lens but you can't put filters on it. For landscapes, that kills it for me. Good luck!


----------



## slclick (Mar 21, 2014)

I had the 16-35 and the 17-40. I have since picked up 2 primes, 15 and 18 to replace the focal lengths I used most (well close) and have never been happier.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 21, 2014)

tron said:


> I am afraid you ask too much: 2.8, Auto focus, Zoom.


Yep, it's like the old saying - good, fast, cheap - pick two. Welcome to the Canon owner's ultra-wide lens choice hell. 

After too many years and posts on this, I've come to the following conclusions:

- If you need the most versatile lens (f/2.8, AF, zoom, with low distortion) the 16-35 II is the best compromise. Yes, compromise. It's a nice lens if you use its strengths, but it will disappoint if you expect too much of it. 

- If you shoot landscapes and don't need f/2.8, the 17-40 is the way to go, but again, is a similar compromise

- If you need the best IQ from a zoom, order the Nikon 14-24 and a high quality (Novoflex) adapter

If you find yourself gravitating towards a single focal length:

- If you need the best IQ with AF, get the 14L II

- If you need the best IQ buy the Zeiss 15 f/2.8 or the TS-E 17, depending on your needs (filter compatibility vs. T/S)

I've left out the other lenses like the Zeiss 21 that are in this range to focus on the widest lenses, but same advice goes for them if that's your favored FL.

Personally, I settled on the 16-35II. It's not my best or favorite lens, but it's probably the most flexible lens I own. The low distortion is great and with the help of DxO / Adobe lens profiles, it's works very well for me. If I shot at 14/15/17mm all the time, I'd buy the 14L, Zeiss 15, or TS-E 17 in a heartbeat, because it would make a difference on large prints.


----------



## traingineer (Mar 21, 2014)

There is the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 lens which is kind of worse than the Canon 16-35mm in it's IQ, doesn't accept screw on filters. But's it's really cheap.


----------



## R1-7D (Mar 23, 2014)

traingineer said:


> There is the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 lens which is kind of worse than the Canon 16-35mm in it's IQ, doesn't accept screw on filters. But's it's really cheap.



Actually the image quality from the Tokina has better IQ and less distortion. The only downside is that it doesn't take filters.


----------



## abcde12345 (Mar 24, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > There is the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 lens which is kind of worse than the Canon 16-35mm in it's IQ, doesn't accept screw on filters. But's it's really cheap.
> ...



I don't own one but as far as reviews and tests go, Tokina does score better.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 24, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > There is the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 lens which is kind of worse than the Canon 16-35mm in it's IQ, doesn't accept screw on filters. But's it's really cheap.
> ...


Yes, the Tokina is sharper than the 16-35 in most focal length/aperture settings, but the big issue (other than no filters and slower AF) is that it produces odd rainbow flare from point light sources. If you search for that, you'll be able to find examples.


----------



## tron (Mar 24, 2014)

abcde12345 said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > traingineer said:
> ...


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=773&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Canon is better

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
Tokina maybe slightly better

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
Canon is better

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3
Tokina is better

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
both are so so...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3
canon is better

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
canon is better

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3
canon is better


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 24, 2014)

traingineer said:


> There is the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 lens which is kind of worse than the Canon 16-35mm in it's IQ, doesn't accept screw on filters. But's it's really cheap.



I own the Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and I am starting to love this lens. I owned the 10-22mm on the Canon 7D but I sold both. I wanted the same flexibility with my 5D3 so, these is the best option, probably not the optimal.
There is also a Sigma 12-24mm that has also low distortion, just a little more CA at the edges but, it will not overlap with your all around zoom, if any.
I also explored the Tokina one since DoX gave very good rating but it doesn't accept filters, which is very important for landscape photography.


----------



## gsealy (Mar 24, 2014)

The Canon 16-35L lens is a super star in my lens lineup. It is so sharp and it produces great color. Just awesome. I use it a lot for doing landscape time lapse.


----------



## Invertalon (Mar 24, 2014)

I had the 17-40L for quite a while before recently upgrading to the 16-35 II... Sure it is quite sharp at 16mm wide open in the center, but overall, I prefer the 17-40L. Much better value for the money. 

I think the 17-40L is sharper, honestly... Between the 2-3 17-40L's I have used and the two 16-35 II's... Maybe the corners go to the 16-35 II, but overall I think the 17-40L is every bit as good if not better. I think 40mm is better than the 35mm between lenses.

If you need f/2.8, go for 16-35 II... If not, the 17-40L is every bit as good.


----------



## tomscott (Mar 24, 2014)

Please don't take what you read on here and what you see in the charts as gospel.

As I put in another thread, I nearly didn't buy the 16-35mm II because of the reviews on Canon Rumors but I went ahead and bought one as I don't see another one coming any time soon. The old buy what you need now rather than waiting for what doesn't exist is good advice.

I nearly didn't buy it because of the poor reviews this site has given it. In practice I have been pleasantly surprised really great lens nice and sharp even at 2.8 at 16mm apart from the very very far corners. Unless I have an exceptional copy.

I haven't used the tokina myself, but it doesn't seem night and day in difference from reading reviews. Its also not as robust and that would worry me when using it professionally, neither is it weather sealed. But it does have slightly better IQ.

I have had it for a week and its right up there with my fav lenses! 

Shot I did on wed for a local client 




Penrith Building Supplies bathroom displays 2014 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2014)

I had the lens for a year. Did not like the corner sharpness at all when full open. Sold it.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 25, 2014)

Had a 17-40L over a weekend to test, didnt like the "softness" in the corners plus horrible chromatic abberations.
Bought a 16-35II, had it over a year, never liked it.
Even at f8 too soft even for a A4 print.
Sold it.

Bought the Tokina 16-28: much better! 
I had luck, because there should be some bad copies too.

So from my experience- a single one and so not representative for all- Tokina finally did it for me.
Ah yes, much cheaper, but this isnt interesting for me on the long run or IQ- wise.


----------



## Shield (Mar 25, 2014)

I went with the Tokina - it's very sharp all over; one of my favorite lenses. It's sharper than the Canon 16-35 II and if you can deal with no filters it's the one to get.

Here's a pretty good review comparing the Tokina and the Canon..

http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/canon-16-35mm-ii-tokina/

Shawn


----------



## gjones5252 (Mar 26, 2014)

Just would like to add my 2 cents. 
I am so happy i didnt read the reviews on the 16-33 ii before purchasing. It is a superb lens. 
i have really fell in love with it at 35mm on my copy, i feel its sharp, accurate and renders colors well. 
I am learning more how to use it on 16mm. When shooting people with 16 they really must be extremely close to center or their body shape will be altered, and its usually not to make them skinnier. 

One thing i use this lens nearly all the time for video. The focus range is unbeatable. I can put the lens at about 1.5ft focal range and have nearly everything i need in focus. 

Dont read the reviews solely, get it.


----------

