Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens

I have been making images with some sort of camera since the early 1960's. In the mid-1970's I got my first SLR. It was some time before I was able to afford a wide angle lens, but when I got one, it opened up a whole world of imaging that was previously unknown to me.

This lens has been reviewed by many people and has been criticized as well as lauded for it's properties of build quality, brightness, sharpness, and the quality of color it transmits to the sensor (or film).

My concern about sharpness in the corners was based on some critical reviews. But like so many reviews of so many lenses over the years, they're not telling the whole story. Simply put, in practical application of this lens, it is incredibly sharp and produces incredible images. It's a very handy package, though the lens hood is challenging to get into a pocket when you just want to carry the lens in the pouch and walk around with little but a camera and a lens or two.

I have no regrets about purchasing this lens. It's everything I hoped it would be. I had considered buying the 17-40mm because of the savings and because of the same-size filter (77mm) to other lenses in the line. I imagine paying twice as much for this lens and then piling the filter on top of of that is going to put some people off. I am glad I waited and raised the money - the extra speed of the lens and extra angle of view at 16mm was well worth an extra week of selling film cameras and old lenses on that popular auction site...

If you're trying to decide to buy this lens, I will not give you any information that will discourage you - in terms of technical quality this lens is unbeatable. If you don't need the speed, or don't expect to use the lens much, the savings on the 17-40 might be worth it. For me, I'm guessing this lens is going to be on my camera a bunch!

Allow me to fill in a little niche gap here. Obviously this is a great lens for still photographers, but for all of the DSLR filmmakers out there who are having trouble with lackluster and muddy video results, the problem lies not with your camera; you need to step up to the L-Series glass. The primary issue with the 7D, 5D Mark II, etc. is the chunky artifacting and pixellation that comes from the poor compression codec built into the processor, or so we all thought. However, the key is, primarily, the quality of the glass in front of the sensor. This lens seems to nullify nearly ALL of the drawbacks of the HD video processing in my 7D. I can expand frame grabs up to 4k resolution, and they still hold up! 2K and 3K looks fantastic. THE GLASS MAKES THE DIFFERENCE. It's borderline magical.
This lens is nice and fat, just like a cinema lens, and therein lies much of its power. The bigger glass allows more light to enter into the sensor, giving the camera more "information" to pack into the frame, whereas with cheap, small lenses, the sensor has to essentially blow up and extract a muddy image from a tiny window. Drop the contrast, sharpness, and saturation settings to zero, add some L-Series glass, and your DSLR video can compete with Genesis, Viper, and can even hold its own against Red, at 1/10th of the cost.
This lens is perfect for the 7D's APS-C sensor. With the 5D, vignetting is a bit of an issue wide open. The focal range is perfect for walk-around footage, steadicam shots, and wide-angle effects shots. Consider this an essential range.

If you want professional-quality video, you need to have L-Lenses. I no longer care about the cost...I am immediately replacing my lens lineup with L-Series glass. I can't believe I've run a photo/video business for 6 years without L lenses! Besides, compared to other lens manufacturers, L-Series lenses are actually quite cheap. I've had the benefit of comparing this with Panavision lenses and I can assure you, there's no significant difference in the results. NONE. This is a gold mine for independent filmmakers.
Shell out the cash. AND be sure to add a few hundred more to the cost of this lens, in the form of high-quality filters! Protect your glass! And do it properly...there is no point in spending $1k+ on a lens if you're going to ruin it and put a piece of plexi-glass in front of it...just because you want to save $50. Get a $100 multi-coated (MRC) UV filter from B+W and just think of it as an insurance policy on your lens. Put on the filter the moment you take out your lens and never take it off.

Happy shooting! You will love this baby.

this lens is great if you like having the wide angle look.

i use it on a full frame 5D.

the sharpness quality of this lens is nowhere near as good as prime lens and is the most noticeable bad aspect of this lens as you can easily tell on some images that the sharpness is not too good.

the distortion can also be very noticeable and requires some skill in the angle and distance of the subject you are trying to shoot if you want to avoid the distortion. if you are too close, the distortion can be very ugly and drastic.

it is definitely not ideal for a walkaround lens and the 24-70 would be better for full frame while the 17-55 would be a much better alternative.

but if want a wide angle zoom lens, then this would be it.

I purchased this lens when I upgraded from my 40D crop body to the 5Dmk2. I decided to spend the extra over the 17-40 and get this lens, simply for the additional F-stop. The quality of this lens is just incredible. I was using the 17-55 lens before this, and I thought that was good. I put this puppy on my 40D to compare and was blown away by the quality. On the 5Dmk2, it just shines. I can't say enough about this lens. Built well, I have no issues with dust, and pictures always turn out stunning.

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.