JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here
The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM is a wide-angle lens for FF and APS-C, manufactured from 2001 to 2007 (discontinued). The focus is done by Ultrasonic AF Motor (Ring-USM), it does not have image stabilization. The average price, when it has been added to the JuzaPhoto database, is 1150 €;
13 users have given it an average vote of 9.0 out of 10.
MOUNT
This lens is available with the following mounts:
Canon EF: this lens is compatible with reflex fullframe and APS-C Canon EF.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 251000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Opinion:l I bought in 2001 and I use it again, this year 2016 I did revise the canon, has toured around the world in truly difficult situations from the desert of Sudan to the forest of Burundi, from the beaches of Somalia to the Congo River! I can not figure out who wrote that overexpose !!! used both with analog and with digital! only thing I do not like is that you can not do because the hyperfocal does not report any data on the lens!
Cons:Good only at the center, distortion at the edges.
Opinion:Maybe I expected too much being an L series, but do not give him a pass on FF not very convincing. too inconsistent made to the various focal and very poor most of all the edges where you have a decline of sharpness, vignetting, and above all a difficult strain to be placed in PP. APSC instead of made it a little better, as the crop factor was cutting off the poorer parts of the lens. Definitely in his favor is necessary to recognize that in 2001 it was not easy to achieve one f / 2.8 zoom lens with AF and tropicizzato; although today thankfully the technology has moved on (and version III of this now seems a precursor of another planet). At the time I replaced with two fixed 14 and 28is samy and I must admit that I've found it better even with Samyang over version 1. Now I have sold well both fixed to switch to another Canon 16-35L, the f / 4 is .. That's a whole other story! But first there was unfortunately otherwise I saved up all these buy and sell :)
Pros:2.8 aperture throughout the frame, Tropicalisation, Construction, Mechanics, Reactivity AF, appearance, materials, colors, sharpness in the center
Cons:Sharpen the edges, Vignette (for me it is a PRO), distortion 16mm
Opinion:I decided to replace my trusty 17-40 f4 with this 16-35 2.8, despite having heard conflicting opinions and reviews not very satisfactory, mainly on the quality bordi.rnL'ottica I really like: the construction is equal to that of brother less bright, then the highest level, the mechanical internal focus is fantastic, and the AF is even faster than that of the 17-40: 2.8 is really fulmineo.rnA utilizzabilissimo - I thought not - and closing becomes more and more clear. The edges in fact are not high quality, but I knew that this was the price to pay to have this lens. At the center instead my copy af 2.8 is already very nitido.rnI genres that are practical reportage, street, still life and figure set, weddings and events: the maximum aperture of f4 had become not just a limit, especially in low light: with this in mind I will not have big problems, considering the fact that the edges will not have objects / subjects of note from evidenziare.rnQuello I noticed & egrave; vignetting high (which I like a lot so I consider it a PRO), and a distortion evident in 16mm.rnIn PP can overcome the drawbacks mentioned above by software with Photoshop or Lightroom.rnDevo admit - needing a bright lens - was the only logical choice: the second set cost much and what they say is not worth the money, as it is also full of difettucci edges compresi.rnNon I have not tested the resistance to flare, which was impressive in 17-40 .rnLa most pleasant thing optics is the blurry soft and gradual, which gives the picture a unique look: on this aspect of the 17-40 was back: the blur was hard and dry, in my opinion the most "obvious" and less artistic : surely the diaphragm 2.8 helps a lot in this circostanza.rnAltra pleasant surprise colors: warm and saturated (very similar to those of 17-40), and not as cold as someone had noted (typical yield "hot" Canon) is .rnUsato in reasonable numbers, and applies them all: both of which FF on APS-C is great: on 7d even eliundermines the "defects" thanks to CROP 1.6, and it becomes quite a handyman luminoso.rnAlla end a bell'upgrade my 17-40. I feel really consigliarlo.rnrnrn
Pros:solid construction, good sharpness in the center, color fidelity.
Cons:very soft on the sides, chromatic aberration, flare, it tends to overexpose.
Opinion:It 's not a blade: the shots are quite soft with only the central part really nitida.Devo always retouch the photos with DPP to make it pretty clear. At that point, it enhances the yield and good color fidelity. Tends a bit 'to overexpose, but with a little' practice, you learn to handle the situation, as well as chromatic aberrations (though solvable in post production). Changing the diaphragm does not vary much the situation remains soft for my taste. The version II and 'much better. rnL'ho bought used for a long time and now I know how to get the best and the limits of optics. I do not think I will never part, because I use it too spesso.rnLa use even on a 7D and it becomes almost a 24 mm, thus eliminating the vignetting at room temperature (about FF easily removed by using DPP).
Pros:Brightness, construction, focal range, sharpness in the center and the focal superiors.
Cons:Resistance to flare requiring attention, sharpness in the corners to the angle setting.
Opinion:A good glass, which on second (I speak of the first type), you can find it at an acceptable cost. I've got to replace a 17-40 F4 (of which I was very satisfied) to have a suitable lens for night use. The sharpness is generally good, with excellent focal higher, closing at F4 is not much different from the cheapest 17-40. Instead loses the comparison in resistance to flare than the little brother, albeit with some attention personally be able to live with it. Even the colors are saturated and not as full as those of 17-40, while remaining on good livelli.rnPersonalmente I recommend it, especially if it is below 700 €. rn
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
