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.)

[shadowsports]

Ernie,

Sorry yours wasn't as great.  It was one of my first experiences with L series glass.  I used it with a 6DMark II. Mine produced a wow factor.  Corner to center sharpness was great.

[ebiggs1]

Well this thread is pretty old almost forgotten. How ever did you come across it or find it? Anyway since then and now I have had the opportunity to see a couple other 16-35mm f2.8L lense and they were exactly like mine. If you got a good one you seem to be the lucky one.

Group photos were/are so bad I couldn't sell them. I didn't even want anyone to see them. I did learn to leave a substantial amount of room around the group and crop later but that defeats the purpose and reason for a 16mm lens, doesn't it.

As just a general rule I don't buy or recommend any Tokina lens. In the olden days I did have several but the only one I have now is the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens. Wonderful lens. I wouldn't say Tokina's were/are junk they are more like Canon kit lenses. Not for me.

Now if you just compare the luck of the draw one single Canon 16-35mm and one single Tokina 16-28mm, the Tok wins, not even close. And this lens is built really well. No issues at all.  One reason I don't do Tokina is customer service. They are not Canon!  I would say it's bad but it is nonexistent so I don't know if it is bad or good. Now mind you this is based on the olden days perhaps Tokina has gotten its act together recently. I don't even know if they make camera lenses anymore.

I will state most people only have one lens to make any type of judgement on. That's what they draw their conclusions on. That single copy. It may well be representative of the entire line or it may not. Unless you have several copies you really can't make a definitive opinion. I have had so many lense I don't even know how many. 100's for sure but only a few have I ever had that I had more than one copy. I probably have forty lenses downstairs right now.  Maybe I'll go count them some time or day or week or......

[Waddizzle]

“ Sorry yours wasn't as great.  It was one of my first experiences with L series glass.  I used it with a 6DMark II. Mine produced a wow factor.  Corner to center sharpness was great. “

I had the Mark II version on the same body. I thought it was a great lens. It was really good indoors.  I didn’t like it for landscapes at the wide end.  It would push things too far away.

[ebiggs1]

"I had the Mark II version on the same body. I thought it was a great lens"

The Mk II is fine and a wonderful lens. IMHO, Canon knew there was issues with the first model and corrected them in number 2. I have only heard of one person that said that model one was great and he has posted so above.

[Waddizzle]

“ The Mk II is fine and a wonderful lens. IMHO, Canon knew there was issues with the first model and corrected them in number 2. I have only heard of one person that said that model one was great and he has posted so above. “

”. I had the Mark II version on the same body. I thought it was a great lens. It was really good indoors.  I didn’t like it for landscapes at the wide end.  It would push things too far away. “

SMH, Ernie.

[Waddizzle]

Same scene with EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM. One is shot at 16mm, and one at 35mm. 

Even the 35mm photo is pushing things away from the camera somewhat.  Like I said, it’s a great lens for indoors.
 

[shadowsports]

Somehow this thread got revived.  I certainly didn't revive it on my own.  I'm sure we can let it die back off now.  

Those pics still look great to me!!!  Lovely reflection.