Thoughts on Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L ii

[khairka9]

What’s the reason that this one gets a bad name and less recommended than version 1 as well.

I am getting a new one for $500 but all the negative comments and lack of popularity is making me think twice.

I will use it for landscapes and may try for milkyway photography.

Have an APS-C camera

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

I owned the mkII for over 5 yrs.  While any product can get a bad review, that was not my experience with this lens.  I used it for landscapes and architecture.  Mine was top performing and super sharp.  Maybe others have more to offer about theirs.  

[ebiggs1]

It is a good lens nowhere near "top performing" and with the caveat you always use lens correction in either DPP4 or Lightroom. For a long time I quit using my EF 16-35mm f2.8 L in favor of the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens.

It is cheaper, although I don't think it is still being made, and has better IQ. But lens correction are better now and the Canon is what I use currently, I am not a fan of Tokina lenses and the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens is only one of a couple I ever consider. It's been a good lens.

"I am getting a new one for $500 ..."

After you test it out and make sure it is working as expected and has no flaws, I would buy it and d/l DPP4 from Canon. Don't get me wrong it is a good lens better than most. If you do nothing but landscapes you may never notice any distortion or softness but if you do large groups of people you will for sure. (Keep in mind based on my one copy.)