|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on November 05, 2022 Pros: All. Quality, efficiency, price. Cons: Thinking that F4 is not enough (wrongly) Opinion: An optics that I have owned for many years now and that lies behind the performance of a flagship. The AF is never wrong, the stabilizer is super effective, the image quality is fixed (indeed, better than many fixed if we go to see). It was cheap at the time for an L series and today it will cost even less. If you need a wide angle with the dynamism of using a zoom you can't go wrong. And moreover it also has an excellent transmittance to be an F4, it is much brighter than the old 24-105 IS. |
  | sent on October 24, 2022 Pros: Weight, dimensions, AF, 77mm filters, stabilizer, backlit resistance, star on point sources, tropicalization, sharpness, absence of aberrations, contained distortion, internal zoom. Cons: Not f/2.8 Opinion: The ultimate wide-angle for EF system. Compact, lightweight and stabilized you can use it as the only lens for travel or reportage. Unfortunately it is not f / 2.8 to have an extra stop in the starry nights or more blurred at 35mm but it defends itself really well. Very good stabilizer. In backlight it does very well without ghost images or loss of contrast. Good sharpness on the entire frame from f/4 to f/8 especially at 16mm. It mounts 77mm filters. It is tropicalized and with internal zoom, guarantee during sessions under weather events. Fast and accurate AF even in the dark or with CPL or ND1000 filters mounted in front. Definitely a step forward or more than the 17-40 f/4 L I had before. Maybe a little too hard to make us portraits but it is not his favorite field. For the rest extremely recommended. |
 | sent on August 17, 2022 Pros: Stabilizer, construction, optics, zero vignetting, filters 77 mm, Cons: Nobody. Only a 35-150 or more of Canon's L-series is missing to complete it. Opinion: What can I say... I can't part with it. Priceless and in many ways irreplaceable. On APS-C also excellent for portrait. I came from the excellent 24-105 L f 4 IS first series and, noticing that I used the latter at opposite ends of the zoom, I thought of widening the field around 24 mm, sometimes insufficient (APS-C). The stabilizer may seem superfluous but it is not: the proof is in the new corresponding RFs. |
 | sent on November 10, 2021 Pros: Construction, sharpness, compactness Cons: nobody Opinion: I used this landscape lens in conjunction with the Full Frame sensor of my Canon 5D mark IV. I was totally satisfied both for sharpness and for how it is built (excellent sense of compactness that it provides when you take it in hand). An excellent L Series suitable for every landscape need. The always comfortable IS helps freehand in low light conditions. A must to have absolutely in support. I gave it up because I currently dedicate myself only to nature photography. |
 | sent on June 15, 2021 Pros: sharpening all over the frame at all focal points, weight, stabilizer, tropicalization, performance-related price Cons: Plastic (excellent, but always better metal) Opinion: Optics purchased in February 2017, until now it has only given me satisfactions from every point of view, at 16mm freehand I managed to make "long exposures" of waterfalls that I honestly did not think it was possible to do without the help of a tripod! The sharpness is already excellent at f/4 at all focal points, the af is excellent and in addition it is also tropicalized.. The only thing that makes me turn my nose up is the excellent construction, but made with plastic materials, which I honestly do not love! |
 | sent on March 10, 2021 Pros: Always sharpen at all focal points, construction, L Series. Cons: Nothing at the moment. Some people complain about the 16mm distortion, but it doesn't seem so disastrous to me, and if you put the lens profile in it, you correct it in a flash. Opinion: Purchased after owning the Canon 17-40 f4 L USM and Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM I must admit that the progress has been remarkable. Canon colors, sharpness already at TA, non-exasperated minimum focal distortion that decreases as the focal, solid construction and tropicalization grow. Together with 24-70 f4 IS L and 70-200 F4 IS L, it has completed the triad of zoom lenses that are present in my kit with good optical quality that allows me to face 99% of the shots in different photographic areas. For something more in terms of sharpness and/or brightness I rarely resort to the fixes in my possession. Very satisfied with the purchase I highly recommend it. |
 | sent on December 07, 2020 Pros: Everything, even the price. Cons: Honestly no one. Opinion: Super wide-angle lens with amazing performance to say the least that I use on 6DII with immense satisfaction. Sharp angle to angle at any iris and focal length value with very low distortions and equipped with a very efficient stabilizer (maybe not 4 stops, but 2.5/3 definitely). I can't say anything but that it's worth all the money it costs and that gives the distinct feeling of being a lens built to last many years, as is expected from an L series. I highly recommend it to all lovers of wide-angle focal points. Vote 10. |
 | sent on November 16, 2020 Pros: Quality, weight, auto focus sharpness and stabilization Cons: Nothing Opinion: Great!! I use it on 6d ii and given great photos. I use it mainly for landscapes and often with nd filter. Tried to use for set portraits and strett is not suitable. Absurd sharpness let's say I mainly use it from 16 to 24mm. As for the distortion just correct the objective profile in posts even if it doesn't seem as exaggerated to me as many say. At the end excellent lampshon and handbag supplied. |
 | sent on April 25, 2020 Pros: Image quality, construction, okay for panoramas Cons: Distortion a little too accentuated, I do not recommend it for streetphoto and eye to distortion in the interior Opinion: Considering its price range it is a great lens for reflex. Good for views. He accompanied me to the deserts in Africa without ever any nasty surprises. Beautiful "stars on the sun" good focus Defects distorts a lot, which you expect from a wide angle under 24mm, but compared it to sony's 16-35 GM, Sony and another galaxy... also as a price... the Canon does not recommend it for streetphoto because of the distortion and also in the interior should be used with caution or you will find unnatural forms due to distortion (and no you will not be able to fix them on Lightroom). |
user177356  | sent on November 05, 2019 Pros: Sharpness, very limited aberrations, regular distortion and therefore easily correctable, stabilization Cons: Nobody Opinion: At the time of the purchase I was undecided between this and 2.8. Having little familiarity with the short focal points, I chose the least expensive solution, only to then make an upgrade. At the moment, however, I see no reason to change: it is a very clear lens, which lends itself to many uses, from architecture to set portrait (for which stabilization is a boon). I use it mainly on tripods for architectural photos and produces very sharp images, which sometimes do not even need sharpening. I have not had the opportunity to test the resistance to flare, which seems to be the weak point of this optics. A16mm distortion is noticeable but very regular, so any postproduction program is able to correct it easily. Limited chromatic aberrations but certainly present, also manageable in post-production. In short, a lens that I had purchased just to "cover" a range of focals, which is proving to be an ace up my sleeve in many situations. |
 | sent on August 17, 2019 Pros: an authentic blade, incredible surrender, coupled with Sony is addictive, I dare not imagine on an a7r3 Cons: it's a shame you can't mount it on Nikon, whose 16-35 has some to eat to look like this Opinion: I was absolutely amazed when I saw the PC files: at 100% magnification you see incredible details and veins, thanks to an excellent contrast and microcontrast never screamed. Great color yield, neutral. Incredible starry. Suffers very little from flare (how he heck do you say he suffers from flare? you've never seen a Tokina or a sony 12-24 evidently), never falls of contrast. Only flaw, but that is not a flaw being physical: the minimum distance of maf, with such a beautiful lens would be the maximum to be able to upset the prospects by doing stacking, but everything can not be had. I was sorry to have to separate. |
 | sent on August 01, 2019 Pros: Very solid construction, image quality, chromatic rendering. Cons: Flare Opinion: It's a really remarkable landscape lens, with a great color yield and excellent sharpness. The stabilizer is a plus not a small plus, allowing shots with times otherwise unthinkable freehand. I'd say the geometric rendering is also great. The only annoying note is related to the flare, which in landscape photos can be annoying... it often happens to be with the framing near the solar disk, even if out of frame, and you generate annoying images, more than I happened with other canon lenses... nothing dramatic, but it's annoying. |
 | sent on May 02, 2019 Pros: Image quality, size with lens hood engaged, rapid autofocus and effective stabilization Cons: Low flare resistance Opinion: I come from the 17-40 which I mainly substituted for the absence of stabilisation. The optics is very resolute at all focal lengths and on the entire frame (FF) already at F/4 and the stabilization makes taking home shots even at long times (1/15). Against the light works instead in a little convincing if compared even only to 17-40 that had a seal to noticeable flare. The hood is a strong point offering a substantial overall compactness. He also works very well on the 5DSr. |
 | sent on May 02, 2019 Pros: Build quality, yield (especially in night shots) Cons: It's a bit of a tantrum when you have a lot of light in front Opinion: Objective purchased for 1 month and happy to be possessor. The photos have a great rendition and very sharp. The only downside is when I take pictures of landscapes with a lot of light in the background where then I have to go to work enough with Ps and sometimes I have to completely remove the background and replace it with a computer-made. Rating: 8 |
 | sent on March 25, 2019 Pros: Focal Range, optical quality, build quality Cons: Size Opinion: For me it is an exceptional optics, with a very useful focal range and an opening that allows to contain weight and price within tolerable limits even for an amateur. The Optical rendition is wonderful in virtually every condition, for my tastes combined with the 70-200 is a complete outfit. The Only flaw is the dimensions, similar to the competitors, but still important, that do not make it a "portable" optics. Of course compared to the brothers 2.8 remains a featherweight... |
 | sent on February 22, 2019 Pros: Optical quality already at full aperture, solid but not excessive construction for weights and dimensions in relation to quality. Cons: a16mm Distortion (resolvable with one click) however reasonable for the focal, some problem in backlight with the sun in the field, but there can stand specially for a zoom at these focal. It is not a feather but it is not said that it is a disadvantage. Opinion: I had the 17/40 which had a very good cost/quality ratio, but I must admit that this exceeds it clearly from all points of view both optical and mechanical with in addition the stabilization that in dark interiors helps; if we really want to find a flaw in the colors My little brother's natives preferred them but you can remedy them. |
 | sent on February 22, 2019 Pros: All Cons: Slight distortion but absolutely correctable in post Opinion: Excellent lens in every respect. A bit of distortion at 16mm, but with the correction in post or in the room, eliminates the only flaw, making it perfect. Speed, sharpness even up to the edges, colors, high contrast, tightness of flare, quality of the blurred, ergonomics, stabilizer. Great lens. Works fine with MC11 and Sony A7 III |
  | sent on January 05, 2019 Pros: Extreme image quality, stabilization, fast and precise autofocus. Cons: Nothing apart from the maximum aperture "only" F4 Opinion: There is little to say about this optics that allows results similar to those obtainable with the best fixed giving up a little brightness... is extraordinary. Sharp and with very little distortion, AC negligible, very restrained vignetting, construction in pure L style even if not metal. I don't think there is any better qualitatively like wide angle zoom for FF. For my way of photographing is the optics of election. The stabilization is a plus though the focal hike would allow it to do without it, but it helps in low light conditions not having to climb too much with the ISO since the only limitation of this Canon masterpiece is the maximum aperture "only" F4. Absolutely to have. |
 | sent on October 31, 2018 Pros: IS, Focal, sharpness Cons: Size? Opinion: An amazing goal. Unlike the old 16-35l I and II is a huge step forward, unparalleled as surrender. Super Sharp, looks like a macro. Beautiful star of Light. @ 24 The maximum yield and the least distortion (almost absent). It seems to be optimized for open aperture.. Maybe 5.6 is the best. The stabilizer works great, it really recovers 4 stops! If you don't need 2.8 then this lens is for you! In the architecture photos inside the dark churches (where often do not allow you to use tripod) is a godsend! You can shoot at embarrassing times freehand without raising too much ISO! I highly recommend it. |
 | sent on July 01, 2018 Pros: Sharpness equal to a fixed lens of the best. Cons: Nothing. Opinion: It's an excellent goal. I own it for almost two and a half years paired with the 24-70 F 4.0 L. I use them with the 6d. Between the two the 16-35 for me is superior. I know it's like comparing a midfielder with a striker, different roles, but this zoom does not have a defect, if not to be a super wide-angle, with the inevitable distortions well macherate however by the optical quality. |
 | sent on June 10, 2018 Pros: Color, yield, AF, is, sturdy, a M L series. Cons: As always no one if you know what you go to buy. Opinion: of my many (too-many) lenses is perhaps one of those I use less. But whether you mount it on one of the FF or on the M6 I know that the results will not disappoint me. Especially the sharpness on the FF is excellent, maybe a little ' cala at the edges at full aperture at 16mm where you can see also a hair distortion and vignetting. In the past I had the 17-40, but this is, in my humble opinion, much better. |
 | sent on June 10, 2018 Pros: Sharpness and colors at the top, only the Sigmas fixed art make better but only a nap and F4 on Canon 5DSR, thanks to the possibility of crop becomes practically a 16-50 autofocus precise Cons: I would say nothing except accept some distortion to 16mm, which for already at 18 is negligible. Opinion: Fantastic Zoom for landscapes, street and portraits set. Colors and sharpness at the height of the 50 megapixels of 5DSR. With a fantastic class polarizer for sea and water. Same diameter filters of the 70-200 F 2.8 II is and of the 50 Art, which is comfortable. It has become the standard zoom of my kit together with the 50 art and the 135 art. The Tamron 24-70 doesn't use it anymore because, although excellent optics, at 24 it distorts too much in comparison to the Canon 16-35 F4 which in the intermediate range of its non-distortion ranges. |
 | sent on June 03, 2018 Pros: Frightening sharpness, microcontrast, ruggedness, colors, stabilizer, AF Cons: Nobody Opinion: An incredible lens. I switched to full frame, to the 5d Mark IV for accuracy, and I couldn't not buy the best wide angle in circulation. Too bad it's F/4, but honestly I don't make a big use of the 2.8, except for a couple of Milky way that I shoot during the year. It has a contrast, some colors, a definition that is something unique. I can only recommend it. |
 | sent on May 13, 2018 Pros: All Cons: Has not Opinion: As soon as you try it you realize you have spent the money in the best way, the yield is fantastic at all the focal, the stabilizer is excellent, the perfect build quality, has the internal fire so does not extend changing the focal... What about is a lens from Applause, you feel like not to take it away from the SLR... good Canon. |
 | sent on April 23, 2018 Pros: Colors, weight, AF, image stabilization, build quality L series Cons: none at the moment Opinion: Let me start by saying that I am using it for a short time and that I have not yet tested thoroughly but I review this lens that I really do. The color rendition is truly amazing, beautiful colors and not overly saturated, lightning-fast and precise auto focus IS helpful though not essential in wide angle, lens hood is modest in size and therefore not cluttered like that of his cousin 17-40. Obviously I will not list the strengths that wide-angles have on photography "street" but I emphasize that the 16 mm they are necessary to bring home the creative shots. If like me you passed by 17-40 to this 16-35 you'll see just how remarkable the difference. Used cars value really palatable. |
 | sent on December 10, 2017 Pros: Incisiveness, absence of chromatic aberrations and distortions, excellent stabilizer, good construction. Cons: It's not a 2.8. But you knew it. Opinion: It is rare that I write reviews but this time I find it appropriate. This lens surprised me. A lens that has gone far beyond expectations and literally tears the 16-35 2.8 MkII for both incisiveness and cleanliness of the image (especially at the edges) as well as for construction. The stabilizer routs those already present on 24-70, 70-200 and 100 macros. Just think that I managed to shoot in the dark, freehand, at times with which it would have been indispensable a tripod, and while getting swishing stop car, I kept unchanged the incisiveness on static objects. Highly Recommended lens! |
 | sent on October 01, 2017 Pros: Construction and robustness, niches, compactness, optical quality, AF, stabilizer, tropicalization Cons: Nobody Opinion: Before him I only had the old EF 17-35 f2,8 L and I have to say that I miss this new jewelery. The f4 is comfortably helped by the stabilizer that in the dark pesto helps so much, especially for those who have a hand not so firm. The image quality has to say that it is great on all the focal points already at minimum diaphragms. It is well constructed and robust, and very good ring tones. Excellent travel companion for street and reportage. Highly recommended! |
 | sent on July 08, 2017 Pros: Stabilizer, ratio between first and second non-exaggerated focal points, sharpness at all focal lengths, standard hood, robustness and constructive quality Cons: For now I have not noticed Opinion: I have this optic for 48 hours, so my opinion and review should be considered very partial and approximate at the moment. I did a total of 20 shots in different lighting conditions and environments with my 7D Mark II, using both extreme focal points, 16 and 35 mm, both F4 and F8 and F11.rnStrabilizing the sharpness even shown at F4, I reviewed all the photos on my IPS 27 monitor by zooming to 100%. I do not know if I was very lucky with the specimen In my hands, but frankly, the sharpness of this zoom touches the quality of a fixed optic at all openings. INever used 1740L, good quality optics and excellent construction, but no comparison in terms of sharpness. The stabilizer allows you to increase the time at very long, otherwise unusable values, but Vs hand is still the essential tool. For my needs, F4 brightness can be enough. The weight of the optics feels but not We can expect constructive quality, tropicalization and robustness without weight.rnI will continue to test it in the coming weeks and I will let you know. For now finished Phase 1 of my show. |
 | sent on May 13, 2017 Pros: Image quality, stabilizer, new price (compared to used), fast AF, colors and contrast really beautiful, sharpness scary Cons: 16 mm quality, vignetting and loss of sharpness at F4 edges, the price between the used not beneficial to the new Opinion: Starting from the weak point: 16mm has a clear distortion and loses its sharpness and brightness to F4 (always at the same focal point). F8-13 resolves every problem. Bought at 860 € new (eglobal), I would say that compared to the used price is cheaper (it is hardly below 750). The quality of this jewel however is highlighted by closing the diaphragm: the sharpness becomes truly incredible so as not to require PP operations. The first time, used to 17-40, I applied a sharper mask and saw the picture "spoil"; The photo in fact was already clear of it and I had to reduce the effect of sharpness to 20% to not ruin the image. Unfortunately I am often at 16mm and this is the only weakness of this optic: the edges do not make the max (which is important for landscapes), however, there is always a slight decrease in sharpness and distortion that I solve by intervening with 'CaptureOne function. I'm learning to prefer 142.8 samyang for wider use. From 18 to 35mm is my favorite choice. I use it in 90% of my photos and never disappointed me. As a focus with 6D (which is certainly not the top in this field) I never got a wrong shot. The colors and contrast of this optic are perfection: what quality! Compared to 2.8 (I and II) seems to make much better this, if we then take the 2.8 III then the talk changes. If you are still looking for clarity, f4 will not make you regret the choice. I call it "my baby" (ref. 16-35) just for the care and love that I feel towards this optic. Inseparable partner of my exits. |
 | sent on April 04, 2017 Pros: Sharpness, weighs, filters, cost and resale value Cons: f / 4 Opinion: Outstanding optics. I come from 10-22 on APSC and this is another thing ... Sharp from corner to corner since f4, and having such a wide angle allows it to be always used to TA without fire problems. The stabilizer is related focal on the genre, the minimum times are used without 1/15, 1/4 with. Further down you incur in the rough. If used for reportage and passeggistica is perfect |
 | sent on March 25, 2017 Pros: Sharpness, Color, tropicalisation, screw filters, light weight, excellent stabilizer, is an L-series! Cons: At the moment no! Maybe the price, but the quality you pay for! Opinion: Taken in place of magnificent 17-40, just own it, at the moment I can only say that he had noticed a better sharpness from edge to edge, 16 to 35 mm f4 also remains a blade, almost no distortion and easily correctable. The colors compared to 17-40 are much more natural and less saturated! I was looking for a brighter lens but since it has an excellent stabilizer does not regret a f2.8. In defending against the big time! He already gave great satisfaction and pretty much became my main lens. The possibility of mounting screw filters is something to be reckoned with, it saves a lot compared to holder plates and expensive! I can only recommend it to everyone is a crazy goal, the best wide-angle zoom I've ever had! |
 | sent on March 23, 2017 Pros: Sharpness throughout the frame, stabilization, tropical conditions and possibility of using filters. Cons: No one but a lower resistance to flare compared to 10-22 Opinion: Purchased to replace Canon 10-22 that I used on APS-C and FF have about the same angle of campo.rnOtticamente excelled, colors and contrast better than the equivalent Canon 10-22 that I used on APS-C.rnL'unico step back I always noticed compared to the 10-22, is the resistance to flare and on 16-35 shows up much more frequently. |
 | sent on January 09, 2017 Pros: build quality, Tropicalization, to flare resistance, sharpness throughout the frame, stabilization Cons: None in particular Opinion: I do not take off more from my Canon 6D. The zoom range is very versatile for different types of use. It is a product that guarantees an excellent result in terms of aberration and sharpness. I appreciate very much the fact of not extend when you stretch the focal length, making it virtually impervious to moisture and dust / sand. I got to test it in extreme conditions and does not see any problem. rnLo absolutely recommend it. |
 | sent on January 03, 2017 Pros: Construction sharpness diameter stabilizer filtroTropicalizzazione Cons: Nn I found Opinion: sharp photos solid material .meglio him I just think I fixed most luminous but I have fixed Fixed currently for street and landscape use it so good despite being a zoom lens makes you not want to come hard but as I said before the fixed are fixed if you can find a flaw in the price but the quality you pay do not know the third set but 2.8 on f4 Cadete absolutely standing |
 | sent on December 11, 2016 Pros: sharpness, tropicalization, stabilizer Cons: nobody Opinion: I got this lens after it had sold and I wonder why. It 'a super wide-angle zoom and replaces the large (for f4) of any fixed focal, even 16mm is very good and serves more often than you think, the distortion is contained and / or easily corregibile.rnI files are sharp, rich in detail and the colors are never "fired", when you want a more lively there are all the means in pp to make interventions desiderati.rnNon spend other words that best other than me have already left here, just remember that once a user the forum said that Canon has only two final lenses and one was this (the other the 70-200 / 2.8 L iS II although now we would add the new 35 / 1.4 L II) .rnL'f4 of these focal is not a significant limitation, the stabilizer instead serves, incredible that of longer focal lengths, type the excellent 24-70 / 2.8 L II, Canon has not even really there inserito.rnAltro to add. |
 | sent on December 10, 2016 Pros: Sharpness throughout the frame, good color rendering, versatility. Cons: Big problems of the diaphragm ghost images, lens hood. Opinion: Goal I have for several months and I've used in the most varied situations. Coming from 17-40 the leap as sharpness at the edges and precision of focus is remarkable, but noticeable primarily on ff because of the aps-c two optical not distance themselves as much sharpness. Improving maf instead is always evident. The colors seem less saturated than the 17-40, but more faithful. An added bonus is the stabilizer, useful on some occasions but not essential so that in most of the photos I keep it off. A significant worsening unfortunately I have to be found in certain light conditions! Just a raking sunlight hits the front lens, or a simple light bulb is in the frame for the photo ravaged by so many of the diaphragm ghosting. I do not know if the hood skimpy he is guilty, but a nasty surprise which makes it much less than the 17-40 in this respect. |
 | sent on September 24, 2016 Pros: Clarity, lightness and stability, good resistance to flare, possibility to mount filters Cons: a lens that is close to perfection Opinion: Well what to say about this fantastic wide angle that has not already been detto..preso because I needed something under 24mm and I have to say that the most satisfied with so I could not be. outstanding lens from all points of view, we do almost everything, from the street to the landscapes (where for the best of) and even some daring Milky Way. Recommended. |
 | sent on September 22, 2016 Pros: sharpness throughout the frame Cons: I found none Opinion: It 'a versatile lens with which right away I was fine. also used at night with acceptable results. has exceptional sharpness and excellent seal the edges of the light, what really stuck with me. Backlit I used it with satisfaction. I would sell only to exchange it fixed very high quality |
 | sent on September 18, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, stabilizer. Cons: Absolutely none. Maybe for some weight but worth every gram weighs ... Opinion: Purchased in preorder on Amazon basing its output only on MTFs and test files. The best purchase I made. Basically my handyman around Gitta and lands in the world. Crisp edge-to-edge excellent resistance to flare, a stabilizer which shot without problems in 0.5 seconds with photos perfette.rnCerto is not light but for me this is not a defect. rnHa also an excellent three-dimensionality and dividend plans F4 to allow some shots must particolare.rnUn for landscape designers and, in general, for anyone looking for the highest quality in these focali.rnE 'the last lens which I bereave in canon.rn |
 | sent on September 06, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, Tropicalization, to flare Resistance Cons: Nobody Opinion: I join the chorus of those who praise this light. RNLA I own a few weeks of FF and I find it pretty spectacular. rnRispetto the Canon EF 17-40mm I noticed, apart from the most lightning-fast AF and the presence of the stabilizer, a resistance to flare and unique fabulous. rnih critical light conditions can give some good photographs. To have in your kit. |
| sent on August 09, 2016 Pros: Crisp, mounted filters 77, AF, stabilizer, tropicalization. Cons: not found Opinion: Phenomenal lens, mounted on the machine (FF) almost no other use. Sharpest down from f4, mounts circular filters of 77, if you open the aperture becomes a knife! Af do not miss a shot, Stab useful freehand. Good resistance to flare, made some really great colors. A lens that works fine at all focal lengths .rnMust Have .rnVoto 10-10 |
 | sent on July 16, 2016 Pros: Image quality from end to end, good stabilizer, tropicalization. Cons: I have not encountered it. Opinion: Objective good at all focal lengths, its use must say it is satisfying and the photos do not excite me making me think of the € 930 spent (amazon). The distortion is easy to correct in my opinion, the zoom range makes it a little handyman (small again) with which you never get a quality hole in any focal length, very resistant to flare just not esagerare.rnConsiglio this goal those looking for a grand'angolare landscape but also as a travel goal, however, for those who have canon is to have and carry it always follows the meantime it is light and not cluttered. |
 | sent on June 02, 2016 Pros: sharpness, value for money, lightweight, filters 77 Cons: nothing special to report Opinion: great lens for landscapes, coupled to 6d produces very sharp images at all focal lengths. The weight is contained. Having already filters from 77 found it very comfortable fit as the most common. At 16 mm the distortion is evident, but nothing you can not fix in PP. Clear that to 16 mm no lens does not distort and is quite normal. rnOttima stabilization as well as maf very fast and silent General precisa.rnIn a great lens at that stage it benefits from the cashback which is good. rnObbiettivo reference in its class rnrnrnrn |
 | sent on June 01, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, color rendering, stabilizer, weather sealing, screw filters 77, price Cons: Nobody Opinion: higher quality optics which for f4 returns an impressive detail. The image is excellent across the frame from the center to the edges, and this, together with the presence of the stabilizer, making it the ideal lens not only for landscapes but also for reportage and street. The color rendering of images is really superb and very good resistance to flare. The distortion to 16 is easily uncorrectable PP. The quality / price is finally good. In my opinion it is the best wide angle for Canon currently on the market. |
  | sent on May 09, 2016 Pros: excellent image quality, build quality, stability, quality / price ratio Cons: nobody Opinion: The best wide angle produced by Canon, and one of the best ever wide-angle zoom ... the image quality is outstanding, is much sharper than 16-35 f / 2.8 II and even better than the expensive 11-24 f / 4 L . The sharpness is excellent from corner to corner, even at full aperture (about 20-24 megapixel sensors); on the 50 megapixel Canon 5Ds remains very good at f / 4 and excellent throughout the frame at f / 8. Besides being crystal clear, it is almost entirely free of chromatic aberration. All these qualities are combined with a professional-grade construction quality, fast and quiet AF, and image stabilizer, a rare feature on the wide-angle (which I personally find it very useful!). The only area in which this lens has some limit is night photography, where the f / 4 aperture forces us to raise the ISO; other than that it is a lens to perfect and is available at a very reasonable price. |
 | sent on April 02, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, even at full aperture, color, precision and af speed, constant f4, tropicalization Cons: Distortion at 16mm. It is f2.8. Opinion: really clear from the optical center to the edges. I use it mainly for landscapes where in my view be the best. At 16 mm the distortion is pretty obvious and not always entirely correctable but the results are spectacular. Perhaps one of the best ever optics for those who make landscapes. The latest generation of stabilizer can be useful in some cases. Definitely a recommended purchase. |
 | sent on March 16, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, stabilization, construction. Cons: Hood, flare. Opinion: Use this fantastic lens for a few months and I am fully satisfied from its use. It has a really excellent sharpness and falling toward the edges and really negligible. Even at full aperture is very clear is the best of themselves in f9 and f11. The stabilizer works well and allows to use it in interior with low times without the risk of camera shake. The building is a real number L, fluid and without ferrules games and body by a nice firm feel. It has become my standard lens for excellence is despite the reduced focal often prefer it to the 24-105 f4 which now often remains in the backpack. Even the distortion to 16 mm is modest, the only flaw is that the flare for a lens of this kind should be more controlled. I had to remove the protective filter (Hoya pro digital 1) because it was impossible to photograph with artificial light, any neon or lamppost created glare although I tried to avoid it by all means. Without the filter, the situation improved a lot buta lens of this level I find a significant flaw. Another thing that does not satisfy me in the inner lining of the hood; It is velvety and is a vacuum cleaner for hair and lint. Also once they are attached are extremely difficult to remove. Lens that advice to have in kit for landscapes but is also ideal for the street or as a handyman glass if you do not feel the need for focal with longer stroke. |
 | sent on February 23, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, stabilizer Cons: Distortion (quite normal in the wide-angle), attention to the backlit flare Opinion: It bought a few months ago to replace my 17-40. In summary I would say a fabulous lens, crisp edge-to-edge already at F4, good stabilizer and useful for hand-free shots in low light conditions. Slight distortion at 16mm, but more than normal on focal so short ... always solvable in post. In backlight it performs well, but you have to pay attention because unlike the 17-40 here some flare may occur. |
user39791 | sent on February 16, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, stabilizer, color and contrast. Cons: Distortion and ghost images of the diaphragm against the light to 16 mm. little personality Opinion: Good optics, although in my opinion often somewhat overestimated. Compared to 17 earn 40 risolvenza the edges but loses against the light. Too many, and annoying, ghost images to 16/20 mm in each backlight. They are similar as regards the distortion (excessive to max wide angle). Hyper sharpness but little personality, very suitable optics for natural and urban landscape less for reportage. The stabilizer can also be helpful to these focal. Bought and sold after a while, for used good luck keeps the price. I return to the beloved / hated 16 35 2,8II. |
 | sent on February 16, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, stability, quality and price Cons: Nobody Opinion: Recently purchased. In one word FANTASTICO.Ad a really cheap price and affordable than other ottiche.L'ho purchased on EGLOBAL at a super price. You may notice a slight distortion at 16mm but nothing special. Everything still solvable in pp, at least for me. I not find it at all difficult to focus manually when needed. One thing I've noticed, and 'that does not give too much depth, but perhaps this is something my subjective. For the rest of the council. |
 | sent on February 13, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, IS, Construction, AF, Price Cons: Nothing to report Opinion: No doubt about it, Canon has pulled flowers a fantastic lens at a price not too high. I should start explaining the pros, but allungherei the broth. Obviously it's a wide we do not do everything if you need a more versatile lens to be sacrificed, but if you want to cover these focal for me is one of the best choices on the market. |
 | sent on February 04, 2016 Pros: Lightweight, ergonomic, efficient, dynamic, made more than welcome optics. Cons: Bulky, plastic hood Opinion: 26agrave; to people like me who have big hands, to feel more present and tinker better. It is however very light. The plastic hood is a bit 'CEEP, for a product of that prezzo.rnTutto in all I consider it a good goal. |
 | sent on October 29, 2015 Pros: Constructive quality - Sharpness - Colour - Stabilization - Weight - Autofocus - Tropicalisation Cons: Nobody Opinion: Purchased just before switching to Full Frame, hardly detachment this lens from my 6D, mainly do landscapes and cars, almost always use with diaphragms ranging from 5.6 to 8 and 11, never seen a lens so sharp from the center to the edges extreme, the purchase price is a bit higher end, but it does pay off in time, every shot for me is a joy, color and sharpness even stabilization, and which the very beginning underestimated tropicalization, note that for exploit 100% is always better fit before a UV filter / protective, in fact I found myself in many situations such as wet waterfalls very close together, the objective is flawless, so far I have not managed to find fault, the rings is Zoom to fire are very fluid, very well finished hood and housing included with the bundle, such as lens from landscape to me today on Zoom canon no better, the buy back again with your eyes closed ... |
 | sent on August 16, 2015 Pros: Construction, light weight, stability, sharpness Cons: distortion at 16mm Opinion: For me this is 16-35mm optics ideal for almost all kinds and practical (photo of architecture, interiors, landscapes, souvenir photos on the go), I keep pretty much almost always mounted except when I have to take portraits or when I subjects very distant. The stabilizer works very well and helps in low light conditions. |
 | sent on July 01, 2015 Pros: Sharpness, quality / price ratio, stabilization Cons: Distortion to 16 mm, some ghost and flare in backlit Opinion: As exceptional optical quality and sharpness from the center to the edge; I believe that very few optical reach these levels. The stabilizer is really effective ... difficult to shake-or moved even in critical conditions. Bello the hood, which is compact than those obtained with other ultrawide of canon and also a lock button that prevents you from tripping accidentalmente.rnLa building is L-series, although anything is plastic, but it earns weight. Too bad need of a front filter for tropical conditions; There is no lack protection in most, but also increase the problems in backlight (see problems flare descitti later) RNLA distortion to 16 mm and is clearly perceptible, although correctable via software, is a bit 'too much for a view of this level. Going up to the focal problem fortunately rientra.rnLa most serious deficiency I found is sometimes the presence of flare and ghost, remains strong enough perspective from this point of view, but nis absolutely on the level of an ef-s 10-22, being for aps-c, belongs to a step clearly inferiore.rnPer the price at which I found (in the shop) it was a bargain! rn. |
 | sent on June 23, 2015 Pros: Construction, Image Quality, Autofocus, Stabilization Cons: Nothing Opinion: After passing the FF 3 years ago and have abandoned the beloved 10-22, I did not know what to take. Fortunately in the meantime has produced this canon wide angle spettacolare.rnNon I still used a lot, but in the first test I noticed a excellent image quality even up to the edge already f4 and also 16mm. Thing in the wide-angle zoom canon had never visto.rnCerto, some distortion has it, but nothing incorrigible or disumano.rnPer regarding the flare, in the first trials against the sun, against artificial lights placed directly in the center or at the corners , I could never find any. Maybe diaphragm chiusissimi and in certain special situations can mostrarne, but for now I never visto.rnPer regarding the atofocus is immediate and extremely quiet. The stabilizer is phenomenal. It allows shots with times impossibili.rnLa construction then is good, beautiful, very solid and very pleasant to tatto.rnEccellente. |
 | sent on June 20, 2015 Pros: accurate construction, weather sealing, stabilizer, excellent performance at all focal lengths, including edges, low distortion Cons: The price, of course, and the size a bit 'too "generous", otherwise nothing to say. Opinion: I think it's one of the most successful of Canon optics and one of the best ever of its kind: color rendering, sharpness, uniformity of exposure, excessive distortion to 16 mm, are at the highest level and, although they can not make direct comparisons, I think this objective (brightness separately, but it is an ultra-wide is not a problem) does not regret the fixed lenses: I could not be more satisfied! |
 | sent on December 28, 2014 Pros: Optical quality and construction. Cons: Nothing. Opinion: I used this lens on the 5D III in my last trip to Patagonia, in difficult environmental conditions ... I was almost constantly in the dust ... the lens is virtually spotless. The optical performance is remarkable even at f / 4, the colors are beautiful and the sharpness is of high level. The only thing that I find unnecessary is the stabilizer, at least for this focal length. Optics consigliatissima. |
 | sent on December 25, 2014 Pros: Sharpness, backlight, stabilizer, maf, tropicalization Cons: distortion Opinion: After passing the full size and pleasantly used after the excellent 10-22 ef-s canon, I decided to take this ultra-wide, driven also by recensioni.rnLa excellent color rendering that is perceived from the first shot is great, as backlighting. The lens does not generate any flare, that if in some cases it may be pleasant, is inconvenient when you need a "clean" image stabilizer .rnLo 4-stop is exceptional and also the focus lightning. rnAnche the focus is pleasant, despite the aperture to f / 4, you can get an excellent bokeh (considering the type of lens that is), then combined with a camera body that stands up well to high iso, does not regret a wider opening .rnLo am using recently and even then I'm not sure, but maybe the only thing that puzzles me is the geometric distortion at 16mm, which in a ultragrandagolare is all there, but this seems to me more than the 10-22 per aps-c ... I used RNE 'a great lens for landscapes and street, consigliatissimo! |
 | sent on December 23, 2014 Pros: Weight-sharpness-distortion-stabilizer Cons: Quality accessories and aesthetics Opinion: ... I tried to hold out as long as possible but the cash back promo winter has cheated me and so I have been shopping together at Christmas ... 24-70 f4 .... what about ... the spectacular optical exceptional performance as noted by many of us .... rnUnica negative note found on both goals is the significant loss of quality by canon ... I'll explain ... owned the 24-105 and aesthetic differences that I immediately noticed are primarily the quality of the plastic used for the hood, in the 24-105 was solid to the touch while in this already feels that the plastic is poor, depending on what the red line feature of the L series in this seems like painted while in the 24-105 was just an o-ring red ... also the rubber ring seems too soft and the idea that over time sfaldi.rnDulcis not least the front cap once distinguished the L series with the written canon ultrasonic while now indicates only the written canon and even that still consists of a plastic very fragile.rnSono only subtleties that certainly does not take away any quality the yeand; Optical But for a number L, where we all know that it takes several cards from 100 to buy it, I expected at least that these details remain unchanged ... rnih any case recommend it to anyone ... |
 | sent on December 21, 2014 Pros: all Cons: no one Opinion: I had to buy this perspective a bit 'reluctantly because of a job that required a good angle so that I, the owner of the modest tammino 10-24, and not particularly fond of "large spaces in a small space" I went to the store and I did the acquisto.rnSono very satisfied, and I think I have not supplied a perspective much sharper than this. A 16 mm feel to almost fill the entire frame ... of details. Not to mention the stabil ... pardon ... strabiliantizzatore ... a manna.rnConsigliatissimorn |
 | sent on December 20, 2014 Pros: Very Sharp, Stabilizer, Construction, Diameter 77mm filters, no distortion, weather sealed Cons: pesantuccio (could also be a pro) Opinion: Before I had a 16-35 / 2.8 1st series which of course I was not happy, then I switched to 17-40 ..... already 'much better along with the Sigma 12-24ma between the problems of sharpness and variability 'between two objectives had, and the weight of the two put together I decided to sell them both to take the 16-35 / 4 stabilized along with a 14 / 2.8 Samgyang.Nitidezza top of all diaphragms to tropical conditions and with an excellent stabilizer last series that allows you to shoot handheld almost sempre.Non distortions already has 16 mm.Attualmente is between € 980.00 and 1150,00.rnin Anyway excellent optics. |
 | sent on December 04, 2014 Pros: Sharpness, stabilization, weather sealing, absent distortion, weight, 77mm filters Cons: No One Opinion: I was the owner of an EF-S 10-22 when I had my old 7D. With the transition to the FF was undecided about purchasing. Between 17-40 and 16-35 2.8 II not inspired me neither. Perhaps more than the 17-40. We know that the 16-35 2.8 is a good lens to the center to the edges but leaves much to be desired. I did then groped by 12-24 mark II Sigma. It 'a great lens, 12mm is really a wonder, especially in interni.rnDi against, having the front lens aspherical, suffers much the backlight and mount the filter to the plate to 122 ° angle of view would be a drain. I was pleased, but in half. I was about to take the canon 17-40 but then the announcement of the 16-35 f4 IS.rnHo eagerly awaited and the first field tests have paid off the wait. Bought on Amazon, arrived and was immediately amore.rnNitidezza top throughout the frame, weather sealed, light and with a great stabilizer. The light points by stopping return a sunburst spectacular. The lens cover is great and the flare occurs only if really put the whip. The 12-24 comparedto this, I can say that Flara the dark. 10 VOTE! |
| sent on November 07, 2014 Pros: Sharpness (check to 24mm) Cons: Backlight Opinion: I state that I do not use the camera much, but I love the wide angle range of 20-35 since 2.8. rnAvevo the 17-40 that I took to get this, as I did not like the low sharpness at the edges set to 17.rnHo took this after selling the 17-40 and I could not do comparative tests. rnih general, however, perhaps driven by the tests seen on the net, I noticed that backlight does not make the most of, my behaves like the test lenstip. Perhaps the 17-40 behaved better ??? Not so.rnInoltre as someone wrote before me on this forum, and driven by his specification, I did a quick test on the focal around 24-28mm, and also seems to me that there is a drop in sharpness compared to the end range of focali.rnMi plan to do further tests, and if the case send him assistance, but I also ask the owners to do some verifica.rnNel Meanwhile, on the backlight, I asked Canon service to see if there are cases of anomalies of a few specimens of this goal, and they said that at the time Canon has not released anysegnalazione.rnOvviamente we will update the review ... rnSaluti.rnrnAggiorno, today November 17 2014.rnHo did a little test shooting at f / 4 a row to see the exact focus, all at a distance from the focal plane of 40 cm.rnIl focal point is in focus at 35, 28 and 16. The focal 20:24 I am focusing on the number 7, which is a focus closer to the floor focali.rnDevo say that even though the two central focal successive measurements give a fire very slightly different, where there is also the perfect measurement. In focus with mirror up okay. I therefore believe it attributed to the accuracy of the focus of the Canon EOS 5 dII I use. Perhaps the professional of today will be more precise in focus. I adjusted the focus for this lens and goes to -5 meglio.rnSaluti |
 | sent on October 30, 2014 Pros: Sharpest, Colors, Stabilizer, Building, Weight, Filter diameter 77mm, No Distortion, Tropicalisation Cons: No one Opinion: On the advice of some member of the forum and after seeing several reviews, I replaced this with the 17-40 Canon 16-35 f4 IS.rnFinalmente also has a wide-angle lens for landscape artists would envy, they did a great lavoro.rnSe already 17-40 is a good optic, especially for the quality / price ratio, this is currently the top of acquistare.rnNitidissimo at all focal lengths, already at room temperature, excellent edges and especially without any distortion even at 16 mm.rnCostruzione great weather sealed , light and with a little hood ingombrante.rnLa to 4-stop stabilization makes it ideal for handheld shooting in low light and video. 10 VOTING AND PRAISE! |
 | sent on October 28, 2014 Pros: Construction, distortion, sharpness, colors, stabilizers. Cons: F / 4, only 16-35mm. Opinion: I believe it is my final optics for landscapes and reportage. The building is typical of the L series and presents the weather sealing (essential, in my opinion, in this type of lenses); the lens is well balanced and lightweight, the lens hood is also very little ingombrante.rnQuel that struck me most is the very minimal distortion to 16mm combined with a sharp edge to the already good at room temperature becomes high diaframmando 1 stop. If not serve more openings this zoom widely replaces all fixed between its focal, except for the 17mm TSE but has a very different price. The stabilizer allowed me to shoot handheld with time up to 0.3 "shake-out and this, coupled with the fact of being already sharp at f / 4, can not raise the ISO or shooting in low light really unthinkable with any other zoom.rnSe was 2.8 or greater had covered a range of focal lengths would be unbeatable (like 16-50), but it would definitely cost a lot more and weighed; 10- vote. |
| sent on October 13, 2014 Pros: Fall at the edges - absent, no distortion, sharpness. Cons: Accustomed to the 17-40, I have not yet found. Opinion: Purchased seeing the MTF test on all photographers of October (as indeed I have always done) the day after the event with photos of groups of 5 or 6 feet to 40 people, with great surprise vignetting and distortion absent (or not significant) nothing fall sharpness of the edges, which mean optical wonderful, really recommend it. |
| sent on September 28, 2014 Pros: Weight and size, lens hood, sharpness, filters 77mm, overall quality. Cons: You have to learn to use it. The more you use more like it. Opinion: I have two copies. identical as quality immagine.Obiettivo of new conception on all points of view. I come from 2.8L 16-35, tokina 16-28 and 17-40L. It is the latter to which I have compared to a comparison. I've done some real evidence around with 6D. I turned off the stabilizer and made shots around a free hand to the parks and streets of the city. Really a nice lens. My copy is gorgeous at all focal lengths although personally I use it a lot in 16mm.Per the normal use of the advice to forget IS. Also great for the video where the IS acquires really makes sense. For landscape is great. A f4 is sharp but closing closing becomes phenomenal and the depth that gives the colors of the sky and clouds is spectacular. Recommended for those who do not know what to get between the various 16-35 16-28 17-40 etc.. |
 | sent on September 28, 2014 Pros: Sharpness at 16mm from edge to edge Cons: 24 the image is no longer in focus, stabilizer which stabilizes once out of 4 Opinion: After reading these opinions I purchased immediately on the Amazon.Ho did a test and I sent back the same giorno.rn1 the zoom ring was very stiff (which then, however, and is confirmed on other specimens provati.rn2 stabilizer 4-stops !!!!!!! 4 stop with the zoom set to 16mm means you can shoot handheld 1 second !!! to get an acceptable shutter to 1 second I have to take at least 4 pictures and select the least peggio.rn3 16 mm okay good but 24 to 35 and all the image slightly blurred (focus to infinity on a tripod) ('s clear that you can recover with the unsharp mask) ... rnNe I bought another one in the shop where I live, but unfortunately same defects of the Mass was not on fire and all focali.rnIl shopkeeper very patient and kind I did try a altro.Peggio.rnHo resumed primo.rnHo made hundreds of shots to figure out the problem but actually I do not know what to say. The body works well with the 70 200 f 4 canon eos 5 IS.rnCon the Mark II I tried to make micro adjustments fuoco.E I managed to get a good fire was put to the focal length of 24 mm but doing so then becomes a blur when I use the zoom to 16 mm.rnNessuno noticed strange things at 24 and 28 mm? RnPossibile I've found 3 copies you can not control evil or good Canon lenses? :-(.....................................................................................................................................................................................................rnrnOggi 01 10 2014 confirm what already scritto.Ieri I redid the test with a 6D nuova.Pensavo that my EOS 5 Mark II had problems though with 70 200 IS f4 works perfettamente.Il judgment and stesso.Difetti also recognized by venditore.Il my advice is to acqustarlo, saw the reviews, but trying it prima.Test facts wide open at f4, tripod, and at various distances including infinity focus. |
 | sent on August 18, 2014 Pros: Sharpness in the first place, color and contrast, stabilizer, filter diameter Cons: At the moment no detected Opinion: I replaced the Canon EF 16-35 F2.8 II with this lens, driven primarily by several reviews, mostly 'positive, and the ability to use filters with a diameter of 77 mm (all my ND filters are of this size ). Initially skeptical, I changed my mind after a few shots especially at F4 with excellent sharpness is at the center than at the edges. Excellent resistance to flare and above all comfortable, free-hand, the use of the stabilizer in times low. In my opinion it 'the 17-40 lens that I still and that I count among the TOP class, it' the 16-35 F2.8 II have a yield similar to this gioeillino mom Canon. Recommended! |
| sent on July 20, 2014 Pros: I will read, sharpness, stabilizer, better than 17-40 Cons: X the moment no Opinion: I PURCHASED THIS LENS FROM LITTLE nothing to envy to the fixed light, sharpness to the edges, it is a very thorough ultrawide specific use x landscapes, I sold my 17-40 for him, good buy, it is much lighter than the younger brother f / 2.8, the stabilizer allows you to shoot even at very low time even if the scenery does not serve much. I recommend it to all, Canon has done a good job. It's always a new perspective! |
| sent on July 19, 2014 Pros: Sharpness throughout the frame, contrast and colors Cons: For the moment no Opinion: I've used these days on tour in Jordan with temperatures around 40 degrees and sandstorms with hundreds of photos put on the 1DX and I must say that it is an excellent quality, colors and sense of three-dimensionality, very comfortable stabilizer that does not lose a shot in some low-light conditions with a slow shutter speed |
 | sent on July 04, 2014 Pros: robustness, sharpness, speed, compactness, light weight, price, especially stabilizer Perfect for mounting infrared filters without classical problems of many lenses. Cons: for now no one except that it is f / 4 instead of f / 2.8 or greater Opinion: I had the 24 f / 1,4 I loved and still love as optical sharpest-ever all; I can say I tried all the L series complete canon latest version and the 24 was and is the most nitido.rnFacendo much landscaping was looking for something even more wide of 24mm but it was impossible to find a comparable sharpness; the 16-35 and 17-40 do pity compared with this new jewel f / 4 and all fixed more than 24 non-mountain wide circular filters, so impossible a upgrade.rnAvevo afraid to leave my disk for this Zoom but are fully appagato.rnNitidezza BREATHTAKING up to 16mm at the edges ... just the latest cm pulls slightly but remains unparalleled to losses of 16-35 f / 2,8 and 17-40 f / 4 ... the fretellone f / 2.8 I never wanted to take because I've always considered one of the worst optical canon.rnQuesto new 16-35 instead highly recommend it to TUTTIrnNon add anything else .... spettacolarernrnFlare and clarity as well as color clearly on another planet compared to f / 2,8rnrnrnrnrnio I paid € 1,000.00 VATinclusarn |
 | sent on June 27, 2014 Pros: It 'an L-series with all the benefits of a solid construction and tropical conditions. Versatility, a typical arrangement for landscape use. Very good on APS-c, excellent with FF. Cons: None detected. Opinion: Not just a few clicks to say pros and cons of an absolute goal. From those facts it can be compared to a 17-40 f4 for the resistance against the light. Excellent color rendering and contrast already at f4. From the center to the edges behaves homogeneous thing that had not the 17-40 at f4. The stabilization and its 16mm allows handheld shooting at relatively low levels. Having used the 17-40 f4 and the 16-35 f2, 8 II I can say that this is 16-35 f4 seems to have corrected the defects of both. If F2, 8 it is not essential that lens I think it can meet the landscapers and those with APS-C also wants a versatile optical format. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
