Canon EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide

Perhaps my most versatile lens. Excellent quality!
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I now own 4 “L” lenses (see below). This 16-35mm f/2.8L is perhaps the most versatile for my needs. I often shoot interiors and landscapes at the wider ranges and the overall quality is excellent. The build quality of this lens is superb (as it should be). The lens is fast, quiet, focuses quickly, and I have no complaints. – When I’m shooting indoors where there are lots of people, this is the lens I use.

Canon Digital EOS 40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

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

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Canon EF 1.4X II Extender

Just What I Needed
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
Everything you would expect from Canon L glass. Very bright, on the spot focusing, fast and I do so love that 2.8F. 16MM is a little ‘too’ distorated for my style of photography most of the time, but that is what you would expect from at 16mm on a 1.3x MF Sensor. Other than that, I have had nothing but good results from this lens.

The ulta wide to own
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I use this lens on a 5D Mk II and I have had none of the clarity issues that some reviewers have complained about beyond 20mm. Excellent image quality in all ranges and I enjoy the flexibility that a ultra wide prime lens doesn’t.

great lens and great photos
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Update on 06/05: If the exposure is correct, the image is sharp at ANY focal length. Greatest lens for landscape and portrait. There is no dark corner and no distortion.

Having the lens for 5 days, I am very happy with this lens. This is my first L lens and it is much better than any of other lenses. The lens was put on my XTI camera. I ignored all the comments that this lens does not match this camera. What I wanted to do is to get nice pictures on the camera on hand. Widness is not the only issue to measure the quality of the lens. I uploaded one picture and definitely that is not the best picture because I am still improving my photographic skills.

Bought $1350 at Buydig with a $150 Heleopan UV filter.

Sharp as a blade
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I purchased this lens based on a recommendation from a friend and other reviews I read.

It is absolutely fantastic. From its sharpness to its build, I can not fault this lens. It is a little heavy but it’s nicely balanced on a 400D Camera body with battery grip.

The price is very attractive on amazon, as you would see this lens go for around 20-30% more on ebay.

Definitely recommend it if you are serious about your photography.

This Lens is worth the $$$
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I use this lens with the Canon Mark III & Canon 40D. It was a bit $$$ but worth every penny. I have uploaded some images to the amazon gallery that are from bright sunny days to hand held at night. I also posted a shot of the milky way if you look under the Canon Mark III images.

It was a bit of an investment, but when you start seeing what you can shoot with it, you will be happy you did.

If you don’t want to spend all the $$$, the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens. This has also gotten some great reviews.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
a very sturdy lens. pictures came out EXTREMELY clean. if you have ever used the mark 1 16-35mm, you’ll notice a world of different. with the previous version, lens flare was so abundant that i had to sell it after only using it for 3 days. this mark II version is much more crisp and clear. hardly ANY lens flare. also, i notice that some people are complaining about how it is less sharp when zooming out. closing your aperture a tiny bit will fix this. anywhere between f/5.6 and f/11, you should experience VERY good images. also, when you buy this lens you should incorporate a SLIM UV filter. preferably the pro1 series from hoya or any SLIM UV filter from B+W. if you dont use the slim filter, then you will most definitely experience vignetting when using a regular filter, because the lens is so wide.

this lens is very solid and i see no problems with it. it they could incorporate the IS system, that would be amazing, but also very costly. other than that, i have no cons.

As expected
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Like all “L” lenses, it is rather heavy. But that is the inconvenience you have to cope with if you want to have a superior lens. My test shots ALL came out as anticipated, fine details, sensitivity in low light conditions, and great colors. No regrets.

Amazing Lens
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
This lens is absolutely amazing and worth every penny. It’s sharp throughout the range and it feels like I am shooting with a prime. I highly recommend this lens.

Not heavy, not big, not that expensive.
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I am so sick of reviewers misleading the public on how BIG and HEAVY L lenses are. This is not the 100-400 (which is justifiably big and heavy). This lens comes in at 1.4lbs and my consumer 28-135 lens comes in at 1.2 – what do I get for me .2lbs? superior image quality, superior quality materials. Really now, if less than a quarter pound bothers you, get a P&S camera. Onto the subject of size, I was quite disappointed when I used this lens because it wasn’t very big at all, much smaller than expected. I like having something to hold onto (I love my 70-200 and wish all lenses where built this way). And is it really that expensive? Let’s put this in perspective, you get what you pay for. We aren’t talking $10,000 here. A mid-grade consumer lens will run you close to $500, and this lens gives a bit over twice that. What do you get? Industry leading image quality, excellent build, as close to perfection as you will probably find for less than $10,000. Just like a 7 Series BMW is 3-4 times the cost of a VW Passat.

I am sorry if this is too much of a rant, I just don’t get where peoples heads are. Focus on the image quality of this lens, not its size, weight and price. If the price is not for you, don’t buy it. Can’t complain about something if thats what you signed up for. If you bought this lens and had no complaint about it and kept it, who are you to complain about how much you paid for it? It was obviously worth it if you have no complaints, right?

Awesome!!
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
It took me a while to decide on spending the money on this lens. Being a amateur photographer, it was really hard to justify this. However, once I received the lens and had time to use it, I am very glad that I did. The picture quality is simply amazing! I put it on a Rebel XTI, and find it a great carrying lens, based on the 1.6 crop factor. Highly Recommended..

It is a 16-20mm lens
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
I fully agree with the first reviewer. This lens excels at 16-20mm range. For 24-35mm it is actually less sharp when compared with my 24-105 (but has less distort and vignetting).

I definiely want the lens to perform equally well in the entire zoom range. But if a compromise has to be made, the 16-20mm range is what I need it for. My primary lens is 24-105, which accounts for 70% of all my shots.

Good lens
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
Good lens except an old person like me need Image stabilization. I was hopeing being 2.8 and a L lens it was fast enough to over come my shakes.

For a person that dosn’t have my shaking problem would love this lens.

A wide angle to die for
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
I had been contemplating which wide angle zoom to buy for some time now, I photograph weddings occasionally and need it for indoor shots as well as for street photography. I had had the kit wide angle zoom once in weddings and the pictures were substandard. The 17-40 4.0 is cheaper for sure but I decided this lens will be in heavy use for years, probably decades, so why not go for the big Kahuna. It was worth every dollar. Picture quality is as good as one can wish for, even in extreme wide end and all the way opened to 2.8! The auto focus USM engine operates like ninja, with lightning speed, precision and quietness. Why only 4 stars you ask then? The one star is missing simply because there is no IS.

A Good Lens
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
I’ve had this lens for over a year now which was bought from Amazon. It is being used on a full-frame 5D and 5DMkII DSLRs. In this price range and wide angle focal length we can compare it to the Canon 14mm f/2.8 or the Nikor 14-24 f/2.8. Why? If you’re looking at this lens, then you should be looking at these other two as well. The Nikkor can be used with a Nikon to Canon adapter from some good companies like 16-9 Adapters.

This lens may suffer edge softness and I had to have mine calibrated by Canon within the 1 year warranty period. From f/2.8-f/8, this lens is not sharp when compared to the lenses above. From f/8 and beyond it performs well.

Overall I’m pleased, but at this price, I would want a little better edge sharpness.

Going on vacation?
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Many people have stated the facts about this lens. Instead of restating them, let me add what I use it for:

For nature photography, this is the only lens I need. Just put something pretty in the foreground (flowers, rocks, etc.) and let the lens magically stretch out the horizon to add drama and flair to the shot. Makes beaches MAGICAL… Makes forests imposing. Adds desolation to the desert.

And from a business perspective:

As a wedding shooter, I use it to stretch out small/boring churches and make them more dramatic. It is also great to use from above for dancefloor shots and really makes the shots DYNAMIC and interesting.

And finally:

If you are deciding between this and the 17-40, let me save you some time… there is a huge difference between 16mm and 17mm. Don’t waste time buying the 17 and then selling it at a loss to upgrade like I did.

If you’re going to go wide.. go wide baby.

best canon wide angle zoom!
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Since I have the 16-35 II I hardly have any other lenses on my 5d. It’s just amazing! It has been improved noticeably compared to the first version and it’s great fun to use 16mm on full frame!

Of course, Canon can still work on the sharpness in the corners from 2.8-6.3, it’s not perfect yet but it’s really very very good and definitely worth its money!

Gave this as a gift……
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I’m giving 5 stars because the gift recipent loves the lens. And I was very happy that even though there was a problem in shipping, everything was resolved quickly.

Couldn’t take it off my camera for days… I love it
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I’ve wanted a wide angle lens for a long time, and let me tell you this was worth the wait. While it is pricy, I don’t regret paying what I did for it. It’s just an amazing piece of glass. It comes with a nice pouch to protect it will pull strings at the top and can work well as a walk around lens.

I use it on a Canon 5DMII and I’ve even done some great video shooting with it. When it’s wide, it’s very wide. I have not noticed the same softness that others are talking about.

I’ve added a few photos that I shot with this to this page.

What’s in the box from Amazon!
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Ok, here it is fast and dirty and I wish other people would explain whats in the box!

First, the lens! 16-35mm of pure luxury mojo! Its big and beautiful all the girls will Envy you! I’m talking big! 82mm!

Second, the standard rear lens cap.

Third, a very nice leathery pouch with draw strings. The bottom is rounded and has a thicker leather part to better to protect your beast!

Fourth, a lens cap that can choke a horse and yes its my first expensive lens so of course its lot bigger than my starter lens. That is only 58mm a huge difference!

and last the Canon EW-88 Hood.

It has a USA warranty card and with Amazon Prime shipping you’ll get it nextday for sure for just 3.99. Its like 80 bucks a year to be a member and I piss that away just breathing lol.

Anything order from Amazon as the seller is pretty much guaranteed overnight if you order it that way. All others beware of 1-5 day processing times even if you order it nextday it will take days! I learned my lesson hopefully you too!

I was not sure how this was going to turn out but I’m really happy with it!

PIC EXAMPLE. If your sitting at your computer right now and you take a picture of your computer screen from about 8 inches away, you’ll get the whole screen! Thats how wide of an angle it is! and I got a 24″ computer screen how crazy is that from 8 inches?

Now try this with your camera at home using a starter lens like the Canon EF 28-105mm 1:4-5.6 USM and see what happens, not even close!

So again buying this here was the best price and its the same apples to apples if you where buying somewhere else! So now you know

Phenomenal WA zoom – best on the planet!
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
From the moment I mounted this lens on my 5D it was true love. Build quality was as one would expect for an L-series lens. IQ that is stunning. Sharp as a tack on the 5D and now the 1DmkIII. It is very wide on FF, not so much on the 1.3x crop, but perhaps more useful now overall. This is certainly a lens that I will keep on permanent standby in my collection. That’s high praise since the only other lens that I can say that about is the 135 f/2. Now there is a combination that I could live with in a 2 lens arrangement. Very highly recommended.

one of the best zoom lenses
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
the 16-35 is essentially one of the best, if not THE best, zoom lenses in its range. with the f/2.8 you’ll get very good light in throughout the zoom range and very sharp pics even at the lowest aperture. on many lenses you need to go up a few steps from the lowest aperture to avoid softness but this one operates very well at all settings.

being L glass, quality is without a doubt there but so is the weight. some who have tested my camera have said its hard to shoot with especially on a small body like a 400D without a battery pack, but I got used to it very quickly and now don’t even notice the weight. its worth taking into consideration though depending on how you carry your equipment.

if you dont need the zoom, I have to mention the Canon 35mm 1.4, which is in a way the prime version of this lense. at a similar price level, its 1.4 aperture is just phenomenal for low light conditions.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Review
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I owned a pretty good copy of the original 16-35 and this one is slightly sharper in the middle, but most definitely sharper along the edges. You notice it most with a full frame sensor camera like the 1DS of 5D.

Low Profile Filters…
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Quick word of advice: if you buy the suggested B&W haze filter ($125, gulp), be aware that you have to use the tupperware-like lens cap supplied with the filter; there aren’t threads for the Canon lens cap. This is a feature, not a bug. And you should buy the filter: you really don’t want a $1400 lens to get a scratch on the front element, do you?

Other than that: just echoing what others have already said. Fantastic lens from 16-24, perfectly OK from 24-35. This lens is one of the three zooms us full-frame shooters should always have in the bag: 16-35 f2.8 II, either the 24-70 or 24-105 IS, and a 70-200 or 70-300. 1.6X crop camera users are better served by the 10-22 EF-S.

Perfect service, quality product.
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I had no issues with this seller. The product was packaged extremely well and was shipped in a timely manner. Tracking information was provided. Will do business with this company again in the future.

Wow!!! Great lens for the 5dMark 2!!
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Great Lens Period, you would have to hold one and use it. Not too heavy and a good size. Very clear and great for videos.

To me, worth the price difference over the 17-40L.
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I’ve had this lens for almost a year, but hadn’t used it much until this weekend, as my Sigma 30mm & 50mm f/1.4 lenses were better fits for low-light situations. However, this weekend I took it to Pawnee National Grassland for some shooting, and I must say, I’m very glad I purchased this lens! At the time, the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM was very attractive due to its low price, but I went with the 16-35mm because of its better low-light performance. I love the pictures this lens produces! And having f/2.8 instead of f/4 might not seem like a lot of difference, but it is. The only thing that could make this lens better would be Image Stabilization (IS), but I’m fine without that as I can use my Sigma lenses if I really need the low-light performance. If you look at my posted photo of a windmill, you’ll see what this lens and a total amateur are capable of!

If you would really be stretching your budget to buy this lens, the 17-40mm f/4L and a fast Sigma prime might be a better option for you, but if you can afford it, this lens will thank you for years! This lens, paired with a fast 50mm (f/1.2-1.8) lens, a 135mm f/2L (for full-frame cameras) or the 85mm f/1.2L (for “cropped sensor” cameras), and a 70-200mm of some sort, will keep you content for years. (Unless of course you’re a birder, in which case you can never spend enough money on lenses!)

Final Analysis: If you’re really considering this lens, get it. If you don’t, you’ll always wonder. The lack of IS in this range makes it even more important for your zoom lenses to be f/2.8. If it’s a huge stretch to afford this lens, get the 17-40mm f/4L and a fast 50mm lens, preferably the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM or Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM.

Disappointed
Rating:3 out of 5 stars
Maybe, I’m just used to the clarity of my sub 2.0 aperture lenses. I’m not a professional by far, but I do notice a difference in quality/sharpness even when I set my 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.2 to 2.8. Don’t get me wrong, its not a terrible lens, its just that I expected more for over 1K.

I only have an EF-S wide-angle lens to compare to, and its obviously worse. Perhaps its unfair to judge between a fixed and a wide-angle lens?

16-35mm Worth the Extra Money
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I was debating between the cheaper 17-40L and the 16-35mm 2.8 II lenses. There is a significant difference in price between the lenses. In the end, I felt that having the extra stop of light was more important than saving a few dollars. After receiving the lense, I have been nothing be astounded by the quality of photos taken with this lens. Lens build and Image Quality are top notch. While I’ve seen the 17-40 produce high quality pictures, I wasn’t about to sacrificy the F2.8 over the F4.

For those not needing the extra stop of light and plan to do outdoor landscape photography, the 17-40 will work just as well. If you want the extra stop of light or do indoor photography, the 16-35mm is better suited for you.

Have something less than a 5D? Get this lens…
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
For those of us with cameras that don’t have a full frame sensor (this translates roughly to anyone who has “less” than a 5D in quality), this lens is a must. Why?

– the zoom range of this lens, combined with the 1.6 cropping factor on (many) cameras, means that the actual working range of the lens is pretty close to human perspective. That is, it looks like things look using your eyes

– this particular lens is very fast at f/2.8, so low light situations are less painful.

– odd comment: the lens is a nice size for daily carrying. Nicely balances the camera, plenty of area to grip, but not too much that sticks out. Comfortable… which means you’ll turn to it more.

Lastly, I’m an advocate for engaging your subject whenever you can (though that’s not always possible With this as your daily carry lens, you’ll be forced to walk right up to the people and things you’re shooting. It forces you to engage, but still give you an opportunity to frame the shot with a lot of flexibility, since the zoom is pretty wide.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
“The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II was able to produce a very good performance in most aspects. The center resolution of the lens is exceptionally high regardless of the zoom and aperture settings. The border performance is lower specifically towards the extreme ends of the zoom range and at large aperture settings…. The build quality of the lens is great and it is a joy to use.”

Canon wide angle a must for any photojournalist
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Since most digital SLR cameras tend to squeeze the average wide-angle lens until it basically becomes useless in tight quarters, the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 goes a long way toward solving that problem. Even at 16mm, the lens performs admirably, and the auto-focus mechanism is fast, silent and flawless. Yes, it’s expensive, but a couple of picture sales will pay for it.

Worth the price over the 17-40mm f/4
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
I have both the 16-35MM II and the 17-40mm. At the end of the day the images produced by both lenses are sharp. The main difference is the speed. f/2.8 v f/4. When daylight turns to dusk and you’re still shooting (ambient light) the option to open up the lens makes it worth it.

Sure its twice the price but the ability to gather more light to get those shots makes it worth it.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens review
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I am a hobbiest with a 30D.

This is my first ‘L’ series lens. I stressed over getting the EF-S 10mm-22mm and the f4 versions both of which are half the price of this lens. I went over the reviews here and at FMreviews. Next, I thought about where I would be using this lens. I tend to shoot in lower light situations and I really wanted to see what this ‘L’ series lens was all about. I also thought about the future and my plan to eventually go to a full frame camera. I didn’t want to have to buy another wide angle lens so this is actually a better idea to have one great lens for both bodies. I wish the included hood was a bit wider as it doesn’t help with a bright sun overhead. Other than that I’m very happy with my new lens and will look forward to seeing the world larger than before.

Great lens!
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I was originally looking to get a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, for the focal length and glass speed. Taking into consideration that my 40D has a FOVCF of 1.6, I opted to get the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 — the equivalent focal length is close enough to what I was looking for. I don’t regret making that decision at all. This is an awesome lens.

EF16-35mm f/2.8L II
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
The EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM ultra wide angle ZOOM lens captures amazing colors and is a great walk-around lens. I’m very pleased with the image quality I’m getting from this lens. Wide open results are very sharp. This is a very nice size and weight for comfortable, sure handling which makes it a joy to use. Wide angle full frame corners are excellent for a lens this wide. This is a professional lens, very high quality with the “L” designation. It is fully weather sealed to protect against dust and moisture. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens is perfect for the wide work outdoor landscape photography, indoor events such as stage work, parties, wedding and for other photojournalism needs.

I spent months researching this lens. I debate between the cheaper 17-40L and the 16-35mm 2.8 II lenses. There is a big difference in price between the lenses. In the end, I felt that having the extra stop of light and wider angle was more important than saving a few dollars. After receiving the lens and doing some shootings, I have been nothing be astounded by the quality of photos I have taken with this lens. Images are very bright, and I do so love that f/2.8.

This is the 4th Canon lens that I own: EF100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS USM, EF180mm F3.5L Macro USM, EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

Does exactly what its supposed to…a great UWA Zoom.
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I’ve read some pretty critical reviews of this lens; from my perspective some of these could be due to an occasional bad copy, but others are likely due to the owner expecting way too much from a UWA zoom lens. Most complaints center on lack of corner sharpness and/or light fall off/vignetting at the wide end and wide apertures. I’ve owned and extensively tested 4 high end UWA Zooms to date now; the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L II, the 17-40 f4 L, the EF-s 10-22, and the Nikon 14-24 2.8 ED (the accepted gold standard for UWA Zooms), and can tell you that the Nikon is the only one that can reasonably (but not perfectly) hold the corners at the extreme wide ends of FL and aperture. Not surprisingly however the Nikon is yet another $400-$500 more expensive than the 16-35II (even more when you factor in the adapter to shoot on a Canon). In real world shooting at f/8 to f/16 however, I can confidently state that you are not going to see any meaningful difference between the 4 lenses without resorting to some serious pixel peeping gymnastics, and even then I’ll gladly take bets that most couldn’t tell the unlabeled photos apart. So confident in fact that I finally traded in my revered Nikon for an excellent copy of the 16-35II.

Yes, this lens exhibits some corner softness and light fall off at the wide end and/or at f2.8, however this starts to clear up nicely even as low as f/4 and is gone by f/8. By comparison, if you really want an eye opener, look at the vignetting on the 17-40 wide open (f/4) – two thirds of the image is dark with only a small central spot unaffected (incidentally, those that post that the 17-40 suffers no corner vignetting are probably shooting JPEG and not examining the RAW image). Contrast this to the 16-35 wide open at f/2.8 where only the extreme edges and corners are dark. Same with corner softness, it does exist at f/2.8 but clears up nicely by f/8. In all cases, if you shoot this lens at the same settings as the 17-40, it outperforms its smaller cousin in all aspects (and the 17-40 an excellent lens in its own right). The 16-35 is more than just a 17-40 that goes to f/2.8, it is a significant improvement at all apertures and focal lengths.

I did some extensive testing with filters and found, contrary to claims in other reviews, no detectible difference in vignetting between a slim or regular UV filter at the 16mm wide end. Maybe there is a slight difference that some purists can see, but for the life of me I can’t tell the difference, so I use a regular thickness filter for the convenience of being able to use the normal dust cap. The 82mm filter size is also often cited as a point of criticism. Yes, 82mm filters are larger and more expensive, but that’s the price you pay for a lens with these specifications. At least this lens will accept filters, try that with the Nikon. Finally, I’ve also heard criticism that this lens starts to go soft above 24mm, but I personally haven’t seen any evidence of this either. Maybe those are bad copy issues again? But mine is perfectly sharp (stunningly sharp in the center) throughout the entire range.

In short, if you absolutely must have a UWA Zoom that has razor sharp corners at f/2.8, you’re going to need to go to other extreme measures such as the Nikon 14-24 or maybe a Zeiss, but then you’ve got all of the manual focus/exposure issues to deal with. In most real world applications at f/8 to f/16, this lens easily holds it’s own against the Nikon 14-24 and definitely edges out the 17-40. In my experience, if I am shooting at f/2.8, I’m likely trying to blur the background anyway, so why would I care if the corners are soft? And if shooting in low light I can’t notice the vignetting in the corners either. In any case, it’s easily corrected in DPP anyway.

Outstanding!
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
So.. I had the 24-70 2.8L, which I bought 3 years ago. I used it as a work horse for weddings/portraits.

Two years ago, I started buying the Canon L Primes. I first bought the 85 1.2, then 35 1.4 and then the 50 1.2. I have a SIGMA 70-200 2.8 (No intentions in buying the canon version as they are the same if you know what you are doing). I have two 5D bodies.

Anyway, recently, I was debating in selling my 24-70 for the 16-35 because I had pretty much all SERIOUS primes after the 35mm range. So there was no real reason to shoot with the 24-70 for me.

Now that I gave a little background on where I am coming from. Let me just say that this lens is simply amazing!

The colors and the saturation is awesome! Indoor photos as well as outdoor landscapes come out phenomenal straight out of the camera.

To me this lens is more versatile than the 24-70L.

Not sure about the negative reviews but my copy is sharp End to End.

Highly highly recommend it!

Great Wide angle Lens for Landscape or Low light Shooting
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
The only reason that I given this lens a 4 star rating is because canon changed the diameter of the front of the lens to 82mm, which for most of us is a real pain. Because, for one thing, if you are buying this L class lens then you most likely already have the other great zoom lenses by canon which are the EF24-70mm f2.8L and the EF70-200mm f2.8L which are both 77mm dia lenses. Now you have to buy all new filter for this one lens and they are not readily avaible of cheap like most of the filters for the 77mm size. Besides that, the lens works well. Typical sharp L class optics and great construction. It is also a nice and light small lens (except for the filter size). I would definily recommend this lens but warn that you better be ready to spend some serious money on filters, which most people will have to do seeing this is primarily used for landscape photography doe to the wide angle.

Thanks

Great Lense 4 Full-frame … Need wider for Crop Camera (40d)
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I am not a pro, just a starting event photographer. However, for a year now I have been shopping around for photo equipment: online, in NYC stores, trying out friend’s equipmnet, reading reviews, etc. This is a great lens, really sharp, + the 2.8 (which gives great flexibility at low light). However, I have been using it with the Canon 40D (1.6x crop camera); after the first gig I realized that it is not wide enouth. If you a starting up with a crop body and are planning a timely purchase of a full-frame, you will not go wrong with this lens. If not, I would recomend looking into the EF-S 10-22mm. Good luck!!!

Better at 16, but goes soft after 24mm
Rating:3 out of 5 stars
UPDATE: Since posting this review, I have done further experimentation and am coming to a conclusion (no new info from Canon thus far) that (in addition to this lens’s gaussian factor) this new version is just more difficult for current camera bodies to focus, which is probably 70 percent of the problem that I’m seeing. Since this was released for the new 1DmIII camera body, we can hope that the 19 enhanced cross-type sensors will handle this lens better than current bodies. I am leaving the rest of the review as written, because the tradeoff against the long end is real, as is the gaussian effect beyond 24mm relative to the original version. Also because it accuratley reflects how others will encounter this same phenomenon. Based on this, I would up my star rating to 3.5 if they had decimals…. Also: Would like to clarify my remark below about it cleaning up the corners as advertised. I mean that remark to apply to the 16-20mm range only, because at 24mm I have a test shot showing a better corner from the original version I lens, which is to re-emphasize that 24mm is the point where the older lens takes over… END UPDATE

Canon has hyped this new lens as an improvment over the great original 16-35, but in reality it’s not a net improvment at all. Rather, it is just a tradeoff… What they’re not telling you is that, compared to the original version, this lens goes soft at focal lengths beyond 24mm, where they are near the same in quality. I acknowledge that the new lens DOES clean up the corners as advertised, but if you shoot people for a living like I do, be prepared for soft eyes and disappearing eye lashes looking back at you. In many common shots this lens cannot resolve eye lashes at near distances, where the old version can and does… If you hate seeing soft eyes in a slew of your professional pictures, you will find some consternation in this lens just as I have… I am not happy with the compromise at all… Everything else about the lens is what you expect from a Canon L, which is to say it has awesome build quality and it’s heavy. I have already owned two copies of this lens and have shot and tested a third. They all have the same softness problem. It was apparently a deliberate design compromise, but Canon’s support techs have not yet been brought up to speed on how to explain or position this to customers, at least not in my experience. I have frustrated them by asking this question on the phone repeatedly, and they can’t answer it. They’re starting to get mad when I call back… I did send my first one in for calibration. They found something to adjust, but it did not help…. Moral of the story: If you like your original version, DON’T sell it. You need BOTH. This new one will effectively be your 16-20mm, and the old one will be your 24-35mm… I think it’s very sad needing to carry two of the same lens, but that’s what this situation has come to. We definitely needed a fix at 16mm, and this one provides it. But it comes at the expense of messing up the 24-35 range where the original version was awesome and where it is still the king…. Others have pointed that you can sub the 24-70/2.8 into this range, and I agree, but at the expense of having to change lenses way more often and having to always have the 24-70 available…. I’m finding this new situation very iconvenient…. Personally, I’m just going to think of this as the super bulky and inconvenient 16mm prime that they should have built instead…. Oh, and final note: Canon continues to make the old version of the 70-200/2.8L despite having added the IS version. I think this 16-35 thing should be that way, too, because many people who do my type of work for a living will choose the sharpness of the original lens over the corner-CA-elimination factor of the newer lens. If I had to choose just one of these lenses, I would choose the OLD one, which I would rate at 4.5 stars versus this turkey. I think discontinuation of the original version at this point in time would be both unwarranted and mildly insane. Can you tell I like sharp pictures?

I LOVE THIS LENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
OMG, this is like, seks. I love this lens. The AF in these L series are so amazing fast! The f/2.8 is great for indoor group shots or scenery. MK2 version has no compression on the edges. If there are, it isnt noticable.

The Filters are very expensive for this lens, but if you make the jump to pick up the lens, youd drop any penny on protecting the glass on this baby.

I’ve owned this lens a little over 6 months, and it has treated me very well, never failed me, and i would truely recommend this lens to any photographer looking into Wide angle lens.

Modest improvement mostly for full frame users
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
I have owned both this and the original version. The new lens is better in the corners and flares less but the corners are still a little soft at f2.8 and you can get the lens to flare a little if you try. I haven’t seen the loss of clarity above 20mm that others reported. Perhaps you would see a slight difference in eyelashes if you did a lot of portraits but this is probably not the best choice for a portrait lens. It is a somewhat better lens for shooting landscapes and other shots where edge to edge clarity is important.

But the differences between the two versions are minor and in some instances irrelevant. If you don’t shoot a full frame camera the soft edges don’t appear in the photo. And flare is a minimal issue at most. It rarely appears and is easy to fix in Photoshop if it does. I would opt for the original if I didn’t shoot full frame based on the price difference alone.

My only problem with the original was when I had to shoot hand held. Sometimes you can’t bring a tripod along which rules out shooting at f16 or 22 so I occasionally ended up with shots that were soft in some of the edges. The new lens will solve that. That is the only reason I decided to upgrade.

I haven’t used many other lenses in the same range so I can’t compare quality with other makers but I’m not aware of anything reputed to be better. I have Canon primes as well as other Canon zooms and in actual use all are generally close in quality. I use the primes if possible when I plan to crop or enlarge a lot but I could still get by nicely with the zooms.

So, if you shoot less than full frame or if price is an issue, get the original. If you shoot full frame but need maximum clarity in the center (portraits for example), test both versions first. If you shoot full frame and need maximum edge to edge clarity, go with the new lens.

Update: Having shot this lens for a long period I would discount the comments about problems above 20mm. I owned the first version as well and I don’t see a difference in the 20mm to 35mm range. On the contrary, I am increasingly impressed with the image quality and sharpness of this lens throughout the range. I recently used it into a very narrow slot canyon where I couldn’t take more than the camera and the lens attached to it and took shots from 16mm up to 35mm that all came out very sharp and rich. Granted I wasn’t shooting wide open because I needed lots of depth of field but the point is the lens delivered the best shots of that trip. In terms of versatility, this lens is unmatched for wide angle use by Canon owners. I also have the 14mm f2.8 II, 17mm f4. TS/E and 15mm fisheye for comparison. This is the one wide angle lens I always take along.

Canon 16-35 mm F 2.8 II
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Replaced my old Canon 16-35 mm lens and is considerable improvement when it comes to less distortion, flare and vignetting. Only drawback is that it requires thin 88 mm filters that are expensive and when using one, is not possible to keep a filter cap in place since these filters have no front threat and use push-in cap types that do not stay in place.

Good Canon L Lens but not for the price.
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
Again, Canon L lens will never disappointed any photographers this 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is no exception and it will allow you to shoot in very tight pace without moving back, I had a chance to try it from my friend while I have my own EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM. This 16-35mm is going to give you super image quality with just a little distortion that you can’t barely notice until you enlarge final print, to me it’s nothing better than canon 24-70mm F/2.8L USM. Except its version II. I have also thanks to my best friend allows me to try it before I decide to make some upgrade. I’ll keep my own.

Here is some side by side comparison, so future users could use some help.

EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Construction (groups-elements) 12-16

Angle of View (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) 98°54°/ 74°10’38°/108°10’63°

Number of Diaphragm Blades 7

Closest Focusing Distance 0.28m

Maximum Magnification 0.22x (at 35mm)

Weight 640g

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Construction (groups-elements) 13-16

Angle of View (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) 74°29°/ 53°19°30′/ 84°34°

Number of Diaphragm Blades 8

Closest Focusing Distance 0.38m (MACRO)

Maximum Magnification 0.29x (at 70mm)

Weight 950g

As you can see 16-35mm is bit more advantage angle of view over 24-70mm but it can not compare to 24-70mm at construction, group and elements / number of blade / Marco shooting and the price.

The choice is yours.