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

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.

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.

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.

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 17-40mm f/4L 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.

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!