PDA

View Full Version : The Canon 16-35mm EF L II reviews!

KrishnenduKes
11-12-2010, 10:39 AM
I managed to get my hand on the Canon 16-35mm EF L II and shoot a few pictures. This is a lens dating from 2007. My friend has been using it since the past two years. I have been eyeing it for the pas year. I did manage to put it on my FF 5D for a few moments and use it. The results are here for everyone to see.

All the photos are SOOC, resized, no curves, no sharpening, nothing!

Temperature for all photos are at 5500K and Tint is set at +5.

16mm
http://www.thephotographer.in/darkroom/attachment.php?attachmentid=1991&stc=1&d=1289537181

24mm
http://www.thephotographer.in/darkroom/attachment.php?attachmentid=1992&stc=1&d=1289537181

35mm
http://www.thephotographer.in/darkroom/attachment.php?attachmentid=1993&stc=1&d=1289537181

There is a review by digital picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx), by by Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-ii.htm) and and by photo.net (http://photo.net/equipment/canon/16-35).

They all go ga ga over this lens. They claim it to be the best UWA money can buy for Canon!

My Personal Opinion: It is very robust. There is NO doubt about it. Focussing is noiseless and very fast. It is indeed a reliable and professional lens if you want a UWA zoom. The colours are nice and warm. But... but... but... as you can see, I am pretty disappointed at the lack of sharpness of such an expensive product and a lens that the whole world says "go buy it"! At 65K INR or about US$1500, this is certainly NOT a cheap lens. But as far as sharpness goes, this lens disappointed me BIG time!

Drawbacks in the test: Did not get to use the lens extensively. Wanted to check the low light fixed f2.8. And the sharpness and colours at f2.8 too. It is a lens of photojournalist who has travelled with this lens to the Beijing Olympics, thrice to Afghanistan and thus is subject to quite a bit of torture in regular quotidian use.

I was really looking forward to using and then maybe eventually buying this lens. But with this experience, my project has taken a serious setback. I plan to continue with my prime 24mm f2.8. It is 12 years old. It costs barely US$250 or less than INR 12000 and it gets my job done pretty well still.

Do check the 24mm f2.8 prime results (http://www.thephotographer.in/darkroom/showthread.php?t=207) and give some honest feedbacks.
anvancy-(macro analyst)
11-12-2010, 10:50 AM
The distortion at 16mm looks weird.I mean the AC compressor looks too stretched.

65k!!why everything is costly.:p

Anvancy
KrishnenduKes
11-12-2010, 10:55 AM
At this rate I would probably end up with the 14mm f2.8. But then it is as expensive with no zoom!
synn
11-12-2010, 11:00 AM
This is the lens we use for all our 360 degree panorama work. The distortion at 16mm is very pronounced unlike the 14mm prime, but the latter is also several times more expensive than this. Other than that, it's a pretty decent lens, a bit prone to flares when pointed directly at light sources (More so than Nikon N lenses, in my experience), but very well worth it if one wants to go UWA on Canon.

If you have the money though, get the 14mm prime. It definitely is a cut above this one.

Or, for maybe a bit more than the price of this lens, You'll get the Nikon 14-24, widely regarded as THE best UWA lens out there across brands (And sharper than Nikon's own 14mm prime) and a Novoflex adapter. Fulltime manual focus aside, it's gonna serve you well. Several Canon landscapers have already done so. :D
KrishnenduKes
11-12-2010, 11:15 AM
This is the lens we use for all our 360 degree panorama work. The distortion at 16mm is very pronounced unlike the 14mm prime, but the latter is also several times more expensive than this. Other than that, it's a pretty decent lens, a bit prone to flares when pointed directly at light sources (More so Nikon N lenses, in my experience), but very well worth it if one wants to go UWA on Canon.

If you have the money though, get the 14mm prime. It definitely is a cut above this one.

Or, for maybe a bit more than the price of this lens, You'll get the Nikon 14-24, widely regarded as THE best UWA lens out there across brands (And sharper than Nikon's own 14mm prime) and a Novoflex adapter. Fulltime manual focus aside, it's gonna serve you well. Several Canon landscapers have already done so. :D

How would the Nikon AF perform with an adaptor? Will the sharpness be the same? These are tough questions.

I am not necessarily looking for landscapes. I am essentially looking for the "walk-around" lens, street and other stuff to shoot, people, action etc...

The 14mm f2.8 looks far more promising but with a price tag of US$400 to 600 more!
synn
11-12-2010, 11:19 AM
The Nikon won't give you AF on the Canon body. However, the sharpness etc. would be the same, as I noticed while filming my video.

If you're gonna use it as a walkaround lens, it won't be an ideal choice. You're better off with the Canon 14mm prime.
Aryan
11-12-2010, 11:59 AM
@Ken Da: Yes, as much as reviewers like this lens, the 16-35mm is known for somewhat lack of sharpness. Being an "L" lens, this ought to be sharp, but nonetheless, for the full-frame, I doubt you can get any wider (as far as a zoom lens is concerned).

I would have loved to see the bokeh performance of this lens, dada. If you have any shots where we can see the bokeh, then, please do post it.

@Anvancy: "L" glasses are expensive, my man! ;)
KrishnenduKes
11-12-2010, 12:18 PM
I would have loved to see the bokeh performance of this lens, dada. If you have any shots where we can see the bokeh, then, please do post it.



None as of now. I will try to procure the lens once again. Lets see. As I mentionned up there, I have not been able to use at f2.8 or in low light! I will even try to put up a comparative with my 24mm at f2.8. But you see, at 16mm, I really do not know how much bokeh will "show" up since everything till infinity remains in hyperfocal distance! Don't you think?
synn
11-12-2010, 12:45 PM
Depends on what your minimum focus distance is. If you get really up close to a subject who is satisfactorily far away from the BG, you'll get bokeh. I have used this technique with the Sigma 20mm f1.8. It's a Meh lens, but does give you bokeh if used so because the minimum focus distance is quite close.
Aryan
11-12-2010, 12:54 PM
@Ken Da: At 16mm wide open, if you get close to the subject (upto the min. focus distance), the background will blur out. Ofcourse, it won't produce a bokeh like the 50mm does and all, but 16mm f2.8 must produce some blur atleast. Alternatively, 35mm f2.8 should produce good portraits (on a cropped frame body). :) ;)
KrishnenduKes
11-12-2010, 05:05 PM
Depends on what your minimum focus distance is. If you get really up close to a subject who is satisfactorily far away from the BG, you'll get bokeh. I have used this technique with the Sigma 20mm f1.8. It's a Meh lens, but does give you bokeh if used so because the minimum focus distance is quite close.

@Ken Da: At 16mm wide open, if you get close to the subject (upto the min. focus distance), the background will blur out. Ofcourse, it won't produce a bokeh like the 50mm does and all, but 16mm f2.8 must produce some blur atleast. Alternatively, 35mm f2.8 should produce good portraits (on a cropped frame body). :) ;)

I know it depends on the minimum focussing distance. Imagine shooting a portrait of a person 3cms from his face just to get a bokeh! Imagine the distortion and stretch! :)