Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L....what's the difference?

[robbie_vlad]

I'm looking into buying a new lens and I know what I want...a wide-angle zoom lens. Before I go about spending the money on this lens (it being an L series, its not exactly cheap) I need some help.

I've seen both the

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
and the
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

being sold used.

What I would like to know is if there is really any great difference between the two, how much of a difference, if anyone has one (or both) and if the II is really worth the extra money (buying used). Thanks.

 

[Big Mike]

I remember reading that the newer II version was improved over the old version...but it's hard to say by how much. Can you find any reviews for the II version, a good review would probably compare it to the first.

From HERE;

Personal Conclusion: Canon's optical engineers say that the II version of the lens has improved corner sharpness. I'll have to take their word for it. Most viewers concentrate on whatever is in the center of an image. Readers who primarily photograph people will probably never notice any difference. Photojournalists tend to work at f/2.8 much of the time, which is where vignetting is the most severe. Both the I and II version of this lens have significantly darkened corners on the brick wall test at f/2.8. Need higher optical quality than what you get from the original version of this lens? Grab a tripod and stop down to f/8. Substitute a prime lens. Don't rush to the store and trade up to the II version expecting a dramatic improvement in image quality.

 

[McQueen278]

it's just weather sealing I believe, but I could be wrong.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Its sharper and has less barrel distortion. Less CA. Weather sealing is the same, its an L.

 

[robbie_vlad]

Thanks, I've done some reading and it doesnt seem like the few minor improvements on the II justify the extra ~$450. Anyone on here own one?

 

[davebmck]

Do you have a full frame camera? If not, you may want to consider a wider lens, like a 10-20 or 11-24. A 10mm lens on a cropped frame camera is the same as a 16mm on a full frame camera.

 

[TUX424]

Do you have a full frame camera? If not, you may want to consider a wider lens, like a 10-20 or 11-24. A 10mm lens on a cropped frame camera is the same as a 16mm on a full frame camera.

If wide angle is the way that you want to go there is really on one option and the would be the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8

 

[davebmck]

Not really. There are several good lenses in this zoom range, like the Sigma 10-20mm. A large aperture is not all that important in a landscape lens.

 

[robbie_vlad]

I have a XTi right now, but I plan on making an upgrade to a full-frame after I get some glass that I'm happy with. Thats why I'm looking at lenses that will work on a full-frame for the future.

 

[davebmck]

You should check out the Canon 17-40 F/4 L. See here:Canon Lens: Zooms - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (Tested) - SLRgear.com!.

 

[table1349]

Being an owner of a 16-35mm f2.8L II the one thing I will say is that it is one outstanding piece of glass that is usable on any of Canon's bodies be it the 1.6, 1.3 or FF sensor. You just have to understand what you have on the body. It is a marvelous lens on a 1.6 crop in the wide to normal range and is very suitable for event photography such as family gatherings, parties, etc as well as any other need for that range. I love it for urban work.

Combined with the 24-70 f2.8L and the 70-200 f2.8L you could in those three lenses cover a majority of most shooting needs. It is a trifecta of lenses that I use constantly. The build is superb, as you would expect from an L lens and the optics of the Mark II version are improved over the Mark one I version in the corner sharpness. Center sharpness is crisp.