Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L ll USM Zoom Lens: Optimized Performance for Canon EF Cameras Review

I don' 16 and the canvas of the lilac night sky over Hong Kong, it seems, If your credo is shooting landscapes, architecture, groups of people, His weakness is in universality, Got pros: Of all the zooms from Canon, me) focal lengths, amazingly sharp for a zoom, color reproduction is very good, reliable, fast. Its cons: There are flaws, of course, but when compared with the 17-40 of the same manufacturer, in my opinion, more importantly, for this money it is a very good thing.

Its pros: - The quality of materials and assembly is top class! Reliable as a tank. - Fast and accurate autofocus - Ability to use a filter Some cons: - Sharpness does not reach prime lenses of their focal range. - Price - Quite a pronounced "barrel" at 16mm

someone wrote that 17-40 is no worse, but still 4 and 2.8 is a significant difference, so for landscapes - maybe 17-40, for everything - only 16-35. undoubtedly good for reporting and for staging. I use it on the second five, I squeeze out the full focal length - in a beautiful St. Petersburg entrance it takes 2 floors calmly Pros below: only the angle, but I agree that the angle is not a virtue, but a characteristic. angle plus zoom Different cons: blurs the picture. and sometimes abruptly…

The best shirik I've ever had. The widest possible angle on a full frame without noticeable distortion. Color rendition, detailing and other chips on the top five with him are normal. But, who are looking for how to press a button and get a great picture, it is better not to buy, so as not to be disappointed. The lens itself does not make masterpieces. Different pros: For me, this lens is well suited for shooting landscapes and interiors. I shoot at full frame and the more that enters the…

For a professional, an excellent tool with its own shortcomings, which can be compensated for by the style of work and experience. For the hobbyist, this is a great tool for shooting landscapes, architecture, and interiors in tight spaces. The main thing to remember is that this is not an all-rounder, it will not give you the same variety of shooting that, for example, 24-70 gives. When purchasing 16-35, you must understand exactly what tasks you are going to solve. I can say with confidence…

Clearly overrated. For interiors, it’s better to take the same wide zoom only with F4, anyway, not a single normal pro shoots interiors with their hands, that one is sharper across the frame and high F values ​​\u200b\u200bare much clearer than this glass. The advantages of glass are evening architecture and creative portraits, because you can control distortion and that's it. Rating 4 lens. And put three because of the price. Its 80,000 is not worth it at all. The red price for him is 25 on…

generally excellent glass if you know how to handle! perfectly shoots landscapes, panoramas and so on, the only problem is shooting people, 35 mm is normal, and at lower numbers there are problems with geometry at the corners and a little further from the center. I am satisfied with the lens, it's great to shoot video on 5d mark 2, there are no problems with distortion on the crop.

Like everyone else - the choice was 17-40 or 16-36. In fact, they are the same, the difference is in aperture ratio, price and show-off) Well, in application situations (as I understand now). I used to think in favor of 17-40, I have 6D - I thought the difference between 2.8 and 4 is compensated by ISO and the whole business - 6D allows you to shoot at 1000-2022 without significant damage to quality. But, by chance, I got a used device 16-35, which stayed with me for exactly one studio…

I have been using the lens for about 5 years, this is the main glass. I shoot mostly reportage in conjunction with 24-70 2.8, where you need to get bigger. Sharp at all f values. During use, the lens worked in frost and heat, in heavy rain and snowfall. It was pricked into 2 parts on a concrete slab (after a little soapy at 2.8 on the right edge, but not critical) it works like a clock. When the aperture is closed, the sun and other light sources look like stars. Good work in backlight, good…

As a landscape lens, the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II on FF is very good, so good that sometimes the picture and colors take your breath away. The polarizing filter (necessarily slim) on this lens does incredible things with the sky and clouds. I was able to fully appreciate all the advantages of Canon 16-35 only after I went through some creative stage with Canon 40D + Canon 10-22 and after selling Canon 24-70. Until recently, the Canon 16-35 was regarded as an expensive toy in landscape photography,

A very strange lens. I can’t single out obvious minuses - there’s nothing to complain about - it photographs what is called “without a hitch, without a hitch”, which is fully justified by its price. But there is one BUT, for the sake of which I decided to leave a review for those thinking to buy it. That's when you shoot with lenses of this class - the result is clearly and very different from the "soap dishes". For example, I have a 70-200 / 2.8L, and even a "simple" lens 50 / 1.4 - both give

The lens is made just fine, there is nothing to complain about. A separate reason for enthusiasm is that with the protective filter installed, the design becomes completely protected - the front movable lens group is hermetically sealed by the filter glass and neither dirt nor dust can penetrate inside. Geometric distortion is minimal, Canon EF 20 2.8 distorts much more than 16-35 at 16mm. You can shoot people, just don’t make large facial portraits with such “glass”, examples of pictures…

When shooting interiors, distortions are negligible and can be easily corrected. There is practically no vignetting. Chromatic aberrations are minor. All shortcomings are corrected when converting from RAW. Panoramas stick together the first time without dancing with a tambourine. Moreover, in PTGui, in PS - there are no incomprehensible transitions of gradations in the sky, there are no pillars "tumbled down" in different directions. It makes no sense to compare this lens with fixes, or…

I don't own this great lens but have been using it all summer. The bottom line is that I really liked it. 16mm on the short end is something. It turns out such sunsets on the sea! Evening and night cities for him are a couple of trifles. The lens easily conveys the warmth of a tropical evening, and the canvas of the lilac night sky over Hong Kong, it seems, can even be touched by hands. Excellent glass with excellent performance. If your credo is shooting landscapes, architecture, groups of…

I bought it less than a month ago, but my puppy delight gradually turned into disappointment. There are very mixed feelings from using the lens. There are no complaints about the quality of workmanship. I am glad that nothing comes out and does not leave, if you hang the filter, then almost the entire lens will be protected. The color reproduction and contrast of the picture are simply excellent. The lens practically does not require the use of a polarizer, the sky turns out to be deep and…

To the second review - try 35 / 1.4L and you will understand where the real, ultimate quality is. It is two orders of magnitude higher, it is really a real worthy lens corresponding to the proud letter "L". However, why go far, a simple 50 / 1,4 beats almost everything in quality, but no, perhaps all L zooms. 17-40, 24-70, 16-35, 70-200 - one garbage, they shoot for a solid 4 and nothing more. 24-105 - not worthy of the letter L at all. Well, perhaps the 70-200 4L IS is a little better than the