Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

gary996 · 31 Oct 2012 at 19:00

Anyone using this lens?
How you finding it?
Is there a very good alternative to this or is this the best?

Many thanks

londonbairn · 31 Oct 2012 at 19:24

Got one a few weeks ago havent taken it outside much but played about with it with our cats.

Lens is very nice centre is very sharp corners good. Def much better than the 10-22mm I had on efs. Build quality is great and I like how the barrel doesn't extend on zoom. Downfall is 82mm filter size so had to go buy another Hoya HD filter but the larger front end looks cool.

I havent tried the 17-40 as an alternative

I got it for 1000 on Amazon.

D.P. · 31 Oct 2012 at 20:40

gary996 said:
Anyone using this lens?
How you finding it?
Is there a very good alternative to this or is this the best?

Many thanks

If you are doing static work and don't mind MF then a popular option is to get an F-mount adapter and use the Nikon 14-24, much sharper. Used by a lot of canon landscape togs.

gary996 · 31 Oct 2012 at 20:48

rafster said:
Got one a few weeks ago havent taken it outside much but played about with it with our cats.

Lens is very nice centre is very sharp corners good. Def much better than the 10-22mm I had on efs. Build quality is great and I like how the barrel doesn't extend on zoom. Downfall is 82mm filter size so had to go buy another Hoya HD filter but the larger front end looks cool.

I havent tried the 17-40 as an alternative

I got it for 1000 on Amazon.

I have the 10-22 at the moment but considering going full frame (7D at mo) so would have to change my lens. It does appear to be very nice will have a look for some reviews.

42zx · 31 Oct 2012 at 20:48

I've used it on my 5D2, it was nice enough but if i didn't need the f/2.8 aperture I'd save some money and get the 17-40mm. If I did need an ultra wide that also had a wide aperture, e.g. for astrophotography, I'd probably get the Samyang 14mm for about £250-300, its manual focus but everything is pretty much in focus at UWA anyway.

gary996 · 31 Oct 2012 at 20:49

D.P. said:
If you are doing static work and don't mind MF then a popular option is to get an F-mount adapter and use the Nikon 14-24, much sharper. Used by a lot of canon landscape togs.

Interesting idea will have a look into this as an option.

gary996 · 31 Oct 2012 at 20:51

42zx
I like to have the fast lens but yes the 17-40 f4 would save some pennies

42zx · 31 Oct 2012 at 21:00

I'd always prefer the fast lens, but you've got to think where you'd use it. I would use it for nightscapes, getting out there at night and doing landscapes. Its probably good for indoor stuff too but I'd bet a prime like 28 1.8 is better unless you're doing interior architecture stuff.

D.P. · 31 Oct 2012 at 22:03

gary996 said:
Interesting idea will have a look into this as an option.

For sure it is not the most convenient but it certainly gives the best IQ <24mm
Manual focus on a wide lens is relatively easy.

-|ScottFree|- · 1 Nov 2012 at 00:52

I have the 16-35 USM mk2... It's a great lens, but I never use it at f2.8... I don't think I ever will. If I was buying again I would get the 17-40 f4 and buy another lens or piece of equipment. I'm a videographer though and I have no interest in making shallow DoF landscape photo's... If I did, I would buy the one I have..

As far as nightscapes.. Buy the 17-40 and a decent tripod.. Slow shutter, (lock it up to prevent blur) Use a remote to trigger and you eliminate the need for f2.8...

gary996 · 1 Nov 2012 at 08:16

Looks like I will be going the 17-40 route and spend the saving else where.

Cheers guys

D.P. · 1 Nov 2012 at 14:24

-|ScottFree|- said:
I have the 16-35 USM mk2... It's a great lens, but I never use it at f2.8... I don't think I ever will. If I was buying again I would get the 17-40 f4 and buy another lens or piece of equipment. I'm a videographer though and I have no interest in making shallow DoF landscape photo's... If I did, I would buy the one I have..

As far as nightscapes.. Buy the 17-40 and a decent tripod.. Slow shutter, (lock it up to prevent blur) Use a remote to trigger and you eliminate the need for f2.8...

The difference in the lenses lies in the sharpness not the aperture.

gary996 · 1 Nov 2012 at 16:26

D.P. said:
The difference in the lenses lies in the sharpness not the aperture.

Yes but is the 16-35 more pin sharp than the 17-40?

D.P. · 1 Nov 2012 at 20:10

gary996 said:
Yes but is the 16-35 more pin sharp than the 17-40?

I don't know too much details about the lenses, the 16-35 in itself is not really pin sharp (although the newer one is better), but the 17-40 is fairly poor wide, especially wide open at 17mm.

Edit: here are some reviews:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1

Reading these reviews it just really reinforced the point that Canon have no high quality UWA zoom.Which is why Canon landscape togs find the
Nikon 14-24 so alluring
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1

TBH, On Canon I would be looking to buy the immense 17mmf/4.0 TS lens.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/485-canontse17f4ff?start=2

That is a lens that makes Nikon users jealous!

mrk · 6 Nov 2012 at 12:27

The 17-40 isn't really poor wide open at 17mm as far as sharpness goes, mine required -5 micro adjustment but even without it it wasn't soft, pixel peeping at 200% revealed an improvement at -5 on my body so really it's very sharp.

My only crit for this lens is that distortion at 17mm at the edges is quite a bit higher than the 10-22 EF-s and you can't correct it as easily in post like you can with the 10-22. it also has more fringing wide open although that's easily controlled on most lenses anyway.