|
| 
 enlarge
| Brand: Canon
Category: Photography
This item is no longer available
Avg. Customer Rating:  12 reviews
Media: Electronics
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Optical Zoom: 2.2
Maximum Focal Length: 35
Minimum Focal Length: 16
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.3
Dimensions (in): 7.2 x 5.5 x 5.4
Warranty: 1 year warranty
MPN: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
Model: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
UPC: 013803008548
EAN: 0013803008548
ASIN: B00006I53Q
|
| Customer Reviews:
 This is a lens to play with and then impress with December 10, 2006
12 out of 18 found this review helpful
Buy it. I know, it is more money than many of the other L series lenses. I know, you usually only shoot portraits or people, you don't need a wide angle. I know, it is reported to be heavy. I know, I know, I know. And some people say Santa Claus doesn't exist. I just received my new lenses, having the 70-200 L lens previously. I took the wide angle when dropping off my daughter at a birthday party and it did both for me. Captured the uniqueness of their barn property and took pictures at the birthday party. Most not needing a thing, just cropping, if that. I shoot with a 20D so of course I want the 5D. If photography is your passion and your fun, especially if it is your living, get this lens. Youthful play will be restored as you lie in the leaves to get the perfect shot of the tree house. Buy filters, as it only comes with a lens hood. My daughter jumped on my bed. my camera plumenting to the floor, and with a cracked filter and it being jammed, I just knew. Wrong, camera and lens fine. The $15.00 filter took the hit, Also, for you adding to your lenses. If you are considering the Canon backback, it is wonderful, and not so wonderful. To me the camera body is not padded enough and of course it has a huge Canon label on the outside. This has cost me to have my car windows broken into, the Canon name. So I put a label over it, saying Sarah's school stuff. Much less likely to get stolen! Have fun, play, and remember to throw up the leaves as you lie there. Stay a kid with this lens!
 Potentially the best lens ever October 25, 2006
16 out of 18 found this review helpful
I got this lens to go wider on a 20D. I wanted to go wider so I got a 5D. Started shooting events with this lens and I learned that the 580ex couldn't give me enough light in the dark. Used the lens during the day. Terrible problems with lensflare. The hood showed up on the edges of pictures (wide). Went back to the 24-70L as my primary lens. When this lens works and circumstances are right, the results are stunning. I'm trying to use two flashes to get the power to use it at night, again terrible flare problems. Whenever it matters I have to go back to the 24-70L. I just don't have all these problems with it.
The problems with the 16-35 lens appear at the wide end. At 35 the lens operates well but that's not what I bought the lens for.
I love the lens but it's the lens that gives me the most frustration and worry. Wish it had cost less but what can you do?
It doesn't come off my camera much. July 9, 2006
109 out of 110 found this review helpful
**UPDATE**
Canon has released a II version of this lens that is also available on Amazon. It is about $300 more than this lens and is advertized to truly solve some very minor problems that the pros really care about. The new version has an 82mm front openning vs the 77mm of this lens...what that translates into is that if you have a 70-200mm "L" like I do, you can exchange filters between the lenses but not between the new 16-35II which has a larger front openning. For me, I haven't noticed any of the small items they were trying to address with the II version as I'm not a Pro's Pro and a) will keep this lens and b) have noticed that value has been retained on this lens even after the release of a more expensive update to the lens. Both are professional lenses in my mind just depends on your degree of sophistication. Hope it helps.
**ORIGINAL REVIEW**
I got this lens because I didn't really own anything close to this range except for the kit lens (good but not great and not f/2.8). I do own a 15mm Canon Fisheye but it does distort quite a bit even on the 20D and I don't like to have to correct in Photoshop each time and I wanted a wide lens. I wanted something wider, that could capture lots of light (I do allot of ambient and low light photowork) and I wanted something versatile (on a 20D this is really a 24mm to 56mm --- great working range).
Pros:
1) With the 1.6x crop factor of my 20D this is really a 24 to 56mm lens. This makes it quite a bit less of a wide angle and more of a midrange lens. Consequently, it stays on my camera all the time and covers most of my daily needs. I bought this lens fully expecting it to be 24 to 56 as I wanted it to be multi purpose and at 24mm its still pretty wide.
2) I try to avoid flash as much as possible given the type of photography I do and at f/2.8 I can take some great ambient light pictures that I would not be able to do otherwise
3) At f/2.8, I can also blow the backgrounds and foregrounds out of focus. The out of focus areas are gorgeously buttery and the blokeh is very nice given the 7 blades of the shutter.
4) The color saturation is like nothing I've ever seen before except with my 70-200mm Canon "L". I was literally floored at some baby pictures I took where the colors were in two words "mind blowing". I knew the color would be great but "WOW!" With Photoshop CS2 I can "fake" saturation but its just not quite the same as the color that came out of this lens straight out of the box. Zero photoshop touchup needed.
5) Its sharp! This lens takes some amazingly sharp pictures into what I would classify as amazing. I've received numerous positive comments on the sharpness of this lens. I've tried looking at the edges to see if there's any CA or less sharpness and couldn't really find any. Maybe on a full size sensor you can tell more but I couldn't really on a 20D. I do notice that the plane of focus at f/2.8 is narrow (which is good) and I have to make sure that everything I want in focus is. The blokeh is very buttery at f/2.8. I like it quite a bit.
6) Its built like a tank. Black metal shell. Metal EF mount. Smooth manual focusing. Sturdy recessed switches. The red stripe catches the eye of photographers who know....easy to strike up conversations and learn.
7) It was surprisingly smaller and lighter than I thought it would be. About half the size of my 70-200mm Canon "L". I was expecting it to be bigger and am much happier that it wasn't. Its on my camera all the time and not a chore to carry around at all. Unless you're a very petite person.
8) Internal focusing. So the lens size doesn't change in size or turn when focusing. This is very useful when you put filters on or when you're focusing in close.
9) USM Motor. Its whisper quiet and it focuses super fast. Faster than my 70-200mm....something I'd expect but wow its fast and silent.
10) It focuses pretty close 12 inches or so. You can get close to your subject. Its not a macro lens but you can get some dramatic wide angle shots with its close focusing.
11) Its TTL2 so works very nice with my 580EX flash.
12) EF mount will grow with you. If you upgrade your camera body to a full frame camera with an EF mount, this lens will fit your new camera and you can continue to enjoy your lens investment.
Cons:
1) On a 1.6x frame size, it doesn't get into "amazing" wide category but that's not the fault of the lens. I'm marking this down as a Con but you can take it several ways. If you want to get ultra-wide on a small frame camera, you won't with this lens (although 24mm is pretty darn wide) and about your only Canon options are the 15mm fisheye which I own and think is a great specialty lens, the 10-22mm EFS Canon, and the 14mm L. The 10-22 I hear is very good but its EFS (and won't fit the full frame cameras - less upgradable I think) and its not an L lens although for a non-L the 10-22 I hear is exceptional. The 14mm EF L will run you almost as much as this 16-35mm zoom. The 15mm EF Fisheye is wonderful but it is designed to distort and the distortion is visible on the 20D and even more so on full frame cameras and you need Photoshop to fix. On this 16-35mm L, if you want the f/2.8 and are ok with something like 24-56, then you won't find better for small-sensor cameras. I'm very glad I got it and, if you already have a full frame camera or upgrade at some point, you can enjoy 16mm "WOW" wide. I can only imagine the coverage I'd get on a full frame camera.
2) The hood is massive...wide but not very deep...so its a shallow hood (It has to be with the wide angle I guess). I never take it off -- it keeps stray light out and is a secondary protection for the lens. I have had zero problems with lens flare.
3) The front lens element does sink in and out inside the tube (exposed but the lens case doesn't change in size). There is no protective filter to protect that front element. I bought a UV/Haze filter ($26 from Amazon) and I highly recommend you do as well to protect your investment. With the UV/Haze filter, the lens is very self contained.
4) Oh the cost....my oh my. Expensive as heck. Cost as much as my camera body --- worth every penny. If its any consolation, these lenses are very hard to make and they keep their value. Your camera body might drop in value as new technology arrives but this lens will hold its value if you take care of it.
Differences, Notes, Things I've heard:
1) I have no experience with non canon lenses so I can't compare but this 16-35 is amazing.
2) Compared to other "L" lenses, it holds up and the quality is amazing when it comes to color, performance, lens construction.
3) I hear there is some Chromatic Aberation at the edges of these wide lenses (well more than the 70-200mm) but that's to be expected when you're gathering light from such wide angles and focusing it....that's got to be hard. Wide angles exhibit more CA than long telephotos. On my 16-35mm it wasn't visible to me. I imagine a Pro's pro might notice care. Anybody with less stringent requirements than a Pro's pro or extremely saavy person, couldn't even notice or care. Besides, CA on this lens is orders of magnitude less than almost any other lens.
4) I bought directly from Amazon. Ordered on a Monday got the lens the next day on Tuesday. Amazing service. Great store.
Not what I expected... April 15, 2006
45 out of 52 found this review helpful
I shoot with a Canon 20D and have used the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM zoom lens as my wide angle option. When preparing for an extended stay in Budapest, I decided it was time to invest in a faster, better quality wide angle lens. I reviewed the lens lineup at the Canon website and decided on the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L. As an L lens owner, I was confident this lens would be a great addition to my lens lineup.
Being an L lens, this lens is meant for serious photographers. The sturdy construction consists of three aspherical elements and Canon's UD glass which largely eliminate the secondary spectrum. Weather-resistant construction at lens mount, zoom & focus rings and switch panel helps protect the lens from the elements. This lens is not compatible with the 1.4x II and 2x II extenders. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L lens weighs in at about 1.3 lbs/600g, and accepts 77mm filters or holds gel filters. Be sure to get a good quality UV haze filter to protect the front lens element. Not only do I see this as a good practice, Canon recommends doing so on their site as well.
The focus type is the standard twist zoom, and permits for auto or manual focus depending on how the switch is set. In addition, the lens has a USM drive mechanism for optimum AF performance.
Included with this lens are the front and rear lens caps, lens hood, soft storage case, and a US one year warranty. The case is a pull string soft case (LZ1319) that can also be purchased separately. The EW83E Lens Hood is used to reduce lens flare and can protect the front element in certain situations.
I have to admit I was disappointed by this lens while in Budapest. I found that for wide angle scenes with the focused subject at a distance, the images were soft. This is precisely the type of images I wanted to use this lens for. Just because this is a fast lens, it doesn't mean I shoot everything at f/2.8 either as some may claim. I have a good understanding of exposure and know how to use the aperture setting to my advantage. It didn't matter what aperture I used, distant subjects were soft in my eyes.
I wondered if the lens needed adjusting or calibrating after hearing all the great things people say. I lent the lens to a friend who loved the quality and sharpness while taking close up shots. I then began to wonder if I was doing something wrong. After testing the lens, I've concluded that this is not the lens for distant wide angle shots like suggested on the Canon website. When the subject matter is much closer, like the other side of a room or several feet away, this is an awesomely sharp lens.
The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L lens is too different to compare to the Canon EF 28-135mm. The clarity and sharpness is incredible on close-up shots, and the auto-focus is quiet and quick. Even though this lens didn't fit my original purpose, it has found a place in my lens collection. I don't foresee this lens being one of my most used options though. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L comes at a price, but it is worth every penny when used for its strengths.
PROS:
Incredible clarity and sharpness on close-up shots
Quiet and quick auto-focus
CONS:
Heavy and bulky (This should be expected with these types of lenses)
Distant subjects come out soft.
16-35mm vs. 17-40mm, both Super, but what's the difference? April 9, 2005
50 out of 77 found this review helpful
Well, besides a whole bucket full of money, one of them lets you take photos in lower light, okay, that's obvious. The 16-35mm is a bit heavier, but not so you'd notice, unless maybe you were carrying it around all day, without eating and you're a bit over the hill. So why pay the extra money, unless, of course, you do a lot of shooting in the early morning and late evening?
Maybe you shouldn't, because I've been doing a lot of photo taking with both, film and digital, and as one would expect from the "L" lenses, the photos are crisp and sharp. In fact I keep I the 17-40 on the camera I carry around all day, you know, the one I might leave on the table in a restaurant when I got to the restroom. It's a lot less money to lose to someone looking for a five finger discount. However, my gal pal Sara and I take a lot of early morning photos. She shoots old houses, and she never, ever goes out without the 16-35mm. She swears by it, loves it, sometimes I think better than me.
So there is a difference, I'm the kind of person that could happily live with less expensive lense, Sara is not. However they both deliver gorgeous photos. You can't go wrong if the lense has that red circle around it.
Jack Priest, Sailor Home from the Sea
|
|
|
Disclaimer: This is an Amazon storefront - the products referenced on this site are manufactured and sold by other parties and sold through Amazon.com We make no representations regarding either the products or any information vendors offer about their products. Any questions, complaints, or claims regarding the products must be directed to the appropriate manufacturer or vendor, or to Amazon.com. |
| |
