Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II

[SensePhoto]

Looking to hit two birds with one stone. Need a wide angle and a good quality general purpose to replace a kit lens for a crop sensor 60D. Already have 70-200mm f/2.8 L and a 50mm 1.4 , i realize that 35mm isnt really general purpose but i figured 50mm prime and 70-200 will do when need more reach. Any thoughts or personal experiance on the 16-35?

 

[Big Mike]

It's one heck of an expensive lens, if I remember correctly.

From what I've heard, the image quality is mostly pretty good, but there are some things that some people don't like about it. For example, I know a pro photographer who has used most Canon lenses and he didn't like the 16-35mm, specifically for it's flair characteristics. He prefers to use the EF-S 10-22mm. He has even modified it to fit on full frame or APS-H (1D) bodies...even though it does vignette.

But since you are looking to replace your kit lens, I'd suggest looking at the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS. This one is a favorite of wedding photographers who use crop bodies. The image quality is on par with most L zoom lenses and it would fill out your kit a little more than the 16-35mm.

One thing to consider, is whether or not you think you will ever upgrade to a full frame body. I made this mistake and bought plenty of EF-S lenses (or similar from Tamron, Sigma) and then bought a 5DmkII. Now, most of my lenses won't work on my best camera (or they vignette terribly). So if that is a concern, the 16-35mm might be a better option.

Another option, that is upgrade proof, would be the 17-40mm F4 L. It's a high quality lens, like the 16-35mm, but I think it's less than half the price...and you only loose one stop of maximum aperture.

 

[Derrel]

Almost as good as Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8...it might be a version II, but as a short wide zoom, it's deficient compared to leading products from "other" manufacturers (PLURAL). Not sure why Canon can not get this lens category up to where Nikon and Yashica-Contax as well as Zeiss/Sony have easily been able to do. As Big Mike mentioned, the 17-40 L-series offers very good performance for much less money.

If you wish to find out more about the 16-35 Mark II Canon lens, go to 16-9: Lens Test Archive and Reviews and look around for a day or two. You will see that among critical users, this lens is simply "lagging behind" where it ought to be...and when a guy starts shelling out that kind of money for a lens that covers such absolutely critical focal lengths, it is good to know how well the lens performs both on its own merits, as well as how well it performs in relation to "other" offerings, at either the same, higher, or lower price points.

 

[SensePhoto]

It's one heck of an expensive lens, if I remember correctly.

From what I've heard, the image quality is mostly pretty good, but there are some things that some people don't like about it. For example, I know a pro photographer who has used most Canon lenses and he didn't like the 16-35mm, specifically for it's flair characteristics. He prefers to use the EF-S 10-22mm. He has even modified it to fit on full frame or APS-H (1D) bodies...even though it does vignette.

But since you are looking to replace your kit lens, I'd suggest looking at the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS. This one is a favorite of wedding photographers who use crop bodies. The image quality is on par with most L zoom lenses and it would fill out your kit a little more than the 16-35mm.

One thing to consider, is whether or not you think you will ever upgrade to a full frame body. I made this mistake and bought plenty of EF-S lenses (or similar from Tamron, Sigma) and then bought a 5DmkII. Now, most of my lenses won't work on my best camera (or they vignette terribly). So if that is a concern, the 16-35mm might be a better option.

Another option, that is upgrade proof, would be the 17-40mm F4 L. It's a high quality lens, like the 16-35mm, but I think it's less than half the price...and you only loose one stop of maximum aperture.

Some good info there, thanks. After getting my first L lens i think I’ll try and stick to L series. The 16-35mm is around $1600 and that’s fine as long as the quality is up to par. I am planning to upgrade to 5d MarkII successor whenever that is out so I’ll stay away from EF-S. 17-40 would make sense since it will replace my existing 17-135mm kit lens which is horrible, but that would mean i would still have to buy a wide angle lens. I guess the question is does 16mm make a big difference on wide end comparing to 17mm?

 

[889Media]

I got that lens a few months ago, but have not yet had time to test it as much as I would like... an expensive lens to just have laying in the bag But, so far I am very happy with. I have only had a chance to view my shots on a crappy laptop, so I have not been able to make up any real thoughts about the image quality of the lens.

The build quality is as good as you would expect from a L-series lens, and I just love how it feels compared to any of the cheaper lenses. It is also a big lens and a little bit heavy, something I actually like about it. Used on my 7D it gives me more stability than a lighter lens, and everything feels more well balanced. As mentioned, my only regrets about this lens is that I have not had time to shoot with it as much as i should...but I never had any second thoughts about buying it.

 

[Big Mike]

I guess the question is does 16mm make a big difference on wide end comparing to 17mm?

It's not much of a difference, nothing to worry about anyway.

And besides. Most lenses don't actually conform precisely to their listed focal length limits.

 

[SensePhoto]

I guess the question is does 16mm make a big difference on wide end comparing to 17mm?

It's not much of a difference, nothing to worry about anyway.

And besides. Most lenses don't actually conform precisely to their listed focal length limits.

Good deal, for the price of 16-35 its starting to sound like im better off just getting a 17-40 L and maybe a tokina 11-16 f2.8 for wide angle.

 

[TheBiles]

I'd really recommend the 17-40 L. Fantastic lens for the price.

 

[usayit]

I preferred the 17-40L over the 16-35L for all situations except when I needed the extra stop. The one advantage over the mentioned Tamron (and others compared to it) is that it is a full frame lens which is important if a full frame body is in your future.

 

[BJF]

Here you go all Canon zoom lenses

 

[SensePhoto]

Got it ordered. Thank you guys for helping me choose the right lens, appreciate it.

-Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens
-B+W 77mm Circular Polarizer Filter

 

[demourne]

Next time you buy lenses, you might want to look on this site: Welcome to Photozone!
Great tests on lenses. Digital Cameras: Digital Photography Review, News, Reviews, Forums, FAQ is testing lenses as well.