|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on July 26, 2015 Pros: Brightness, tropicalization, colors Cons: Sharp edges, 82mm filters Opinion: I use this lens for street reportage, almost like a handyman because I prefer the focal low of FF is that of APS-H, even before I used on APS-C, I also had the first version, which cmq gave me so much satisfaction ! I do not need a lens in perfect detail (there is the F4 IS which is much better) but a very bright; distortion and vignetting are known defects of this lens, as the lack of stabilization, but I do not care! ;-)))) Tropical conditions, not too heavy, smooth rings! |
user19058   | sent on February 24, 2015 Pros: Opening; good contrast; already usable at the center at TA excluded 35mm; well homogeneous high levels of 5.6 and 8. Cons: Distortion? like all! Cartoon always a little (just a TA, more than the others), the price today as if there was only him ... Opinion: Do not change it! His faults are normal; Blurring the edges of the f / 4, does not have to be a surgical instrument. That Canon is back with wide angles is true always, you have to get over it. And then I do not think that all the photos below are to be thrown away, indeed. Aspect of the comparison with the new Tamron 15-30 2.8 which Dustin Abbott amazes you, but even then not svendo for the sake of change: for me the overall quality and yield of the shots are widely professional. |
 | sent on February 21, 2015 Pros: Great lens Cons: Difficult to use (the easy out of focus and / or moved) NOT FOR BEGINNERS OR AMATEURS. Opinion: If I could go back, would buy the Sigma 12-24. (For the price) .The most serious flaw (not only for Canon) LACK OF STABILIZZATORE.Solo for professionals pazienti.Prezzo high, but responding to a targhet high qualità.rnIl amateur and / or beginner, wanting absolutely a lens Canon, would do well to opt for 17-40.rn |
 | sent on September 19, 2014 Pros: Brightness, Construction, Versatility, Colors Cons: Weight, Price, optical non-stabilized Opinion: The objective that I love, companion and working viaggio.E 'optics which I love, but it would not hurt if it would be even more wide angle, so as to eliminate the need for future purchase of a 14 mm stabilizer fisso.Manca .. . has a major flaw, but more than compensated for by his big luminosità.rnTuttavia rest satisfied with the purchase of this lens that I consider essential in my kit as ultra wide-angle optics. |
 | sent on September 10, 2014 Pros: Brightness, build quality, speed of focus Cons: Lack of sharpness at the edges, distortion, weight, size, cost Opinion: The 16-35mm 2.8 (http://amzn.to/1CRX100) has become my favorite travel companion for photographs and video. The brightness is great and the camera angle is perfect for use in the field and especially naturalistic video as objective coupled to a steadicam. Unfortunately, the cost is too high for a lens so blurry (compared for example to the 17-40 I had before) and with distortion so obvious ... absolutely optical performance below expectations! |
 | sent on August 09, 2014 Pros: Brightness. Cons: Distortion, poor sharpness at the edges and price. Opinion: L 'I sold x take the new 16-35 f4 Is usm, already says it all. Good yield in the center but the edges between low distortion and sharpness really disappointed me. Compared with the 16 -35 f4 usm Is not deserve even the red stripe of the optical professional. Purchased at 1600 € just sold out at 850 €, so what put € 750 just to deliberarmene. |
 | sent on July 14, 2014 Pros: Building up to the price Cons: Quality well below expectations and above the price Opinion: I used it two days, I was loaned back to pat, last series, datecode UC ... thus year 2014, with the last box type, the ones with the pictures on both sides not just red and white, yet the results are were well below his fine mechanical construction and precision of movement. It distorts a 16mm is sharp in the center but at the edge drops so dizzy, the focal length of 35mmn is almost unusable as knead in low light conditions. I got to test it in fairly dark interior and exterior lighting and contrast, where do I say to her right diaphragms made it, but to pay these sorbole to have a view, to my opinion, just beautiful to see and touch, pena.rnPer just not worth the value for money better than the 17-40 well will have its glitches, but at least the right coast (less than half) and landscapes in full sun equals this unsuccessful zoom that never never venture to comprare.rnConfido much in the version f / 4 IS imminent purchase. |
 | sent on June 25, 2014 Pros: bright constant aperture, quality costruttivarn Cons: - Opinion: Excellent performance at 16mm is at the center than at the edges, considering the wide-angle focal length. Particularly useful for shooting in cramped and poorly lit or scenarios to capture large environments are difficult to access. The range of focal lengths, albeit content, however, makes it more practical than optics fixed and can become indispensable in cases in which the freedom of movement is limited. As optical landscape objectives rather more versatile as the 24-105 but, even if you do not use the 16-35 so frequently on several occasions proved to be indispensable. |
user39791 | sent on June 07, 2014 Pros: Brightness, focal range, construction, contrast, colors, made in the middle. Mechanical construction perfect. Cons: Bad edges 2.8 to 16, and never even convincing in 8/11, to yield 35 always mediocre. Low resistance to flare, significant distortion at 16, a lot of CA at the edges. Price disproportionate when compared with the optical performance. Opinion: I've had it tested by a friend who wanted to sell it. His copy had a defect likely to autofocus as 35 mm on average a photo of 4 was not perfectly in focus. Omit this aspect and assess only those in focus. Even if I did not put this aspect of the negative that does not testify in his favor, because the optics was in perfect condition and with 6 months of life so do not think that is a defect after sales due to misuse of the same but more likely to an insufficient control of qualità.rnrnChe say, for the cost and the blazon the yield is disconcerting .......... in a negative sense. A 16 edges are unwatchable to 2.8 while the center is crystal clear that the contrast makes a very bad even seeing the picture on the monitor without enlarging it. Much better than the 17 that at least 40 is more homogeneous in the yield to part corners 17 f 4. Closing a bit improve edges but also af 8/11 the situation is not entirely rosy. Between 20:28's better, I would say that 24 is his best spot. 35 Unfortunately, the situation worsens and the resa is never to optical quality. For me, I tend to use this type of zoom only the two extremes at both ends have just made the worst is a handicap invalicabile.rnrnMolto beautiful colors and contrast, but as we are in CA and distortion level - if not worse - 40 of 17. too, holding the flare is not impeccable, while the mechanical construction is level altissimo.rnrnA my opinion we did not dear Canon, after 16 35 4 2.8 is a new urgent now. rnrnrnrn |
 | sent on December 27, 2013 Pros: Robust construction, weather sealing, focal range, brightness Cons: Drop in sharpness at the edges to TA Opinion: For me, this lens has a focal range perfect for travel photos, I use it mainly because it offers unique perspectives 16mm or 35mm focal length which is the typical reportage (of course I'm talking about FF). Of course the sharpness of the edges is not greatest but we're talking about a super-wide zoom, we can not expect a yield of 24-70! The price is quite high but if like me you find a good used at an attractive price I think in the kit with the 70-200 is the ideal pair of Zoom! |
 | sent on June 17, 2013 Pros: f/2.8 zoom, Construction, reliability, speed of focus, ability to mount filters (slim) focus very pleasant at full aperture, field angle, brightness, color and contrast Cons: Price, edges a little sharper wide open but improves diaframmando. Opinion: Purchased as a replacement for the 17-40 f.4 because of a diaphragm requires more light to be coupled with a 5D MK2, defects are stranoti this goal, in particular, confirm the lack of sharpness in the corners while the central area is very sharp, very nice from my point of view, the focus at full aperture even at the shorter focal length, very beautiful is the feeling "touch" that by holding the optical sense of solidity and build quality. |
 | sent on February 18, 2013 Pros: Construction, range of focal lengths, brightness Cons: Loss of sharpness at 35mm Opinion: If I were to keep only one lens in my kit lui.rnHa choose the range of focal lengths ideal for the way I shoot (reportage), use it as a disk 35 with the ability to zoom out. A 35mm TA and lost in engraving but to my taste the files are more than usable. rnPer rest of the colors and contrast are L series even at full aperture, has a minimum focusing distance of almost macro. Closing the diaphragm generates beautiful big star over highlights for me is a pro. The focus is pleasant, the aberrations are at a minimum, distorts and cartoon at room temperature but is resolved with one click (and then to me like vignetting). RnSoffre a little 'flare but I think it is physiological with wide angle lenses like that, I tried the 20-35L and is much, much worse than the 16-35L II.rnSe you need this range of focal lengths and this light there are few alternatives, but I think worth all the money it costs. |
 | sent on February 11, 2012 Pros: building up to the expectations Cons: only good sharpness in the center of the frame and the focal length of 35mm is not outstanding even there. Opinion: I got the 16-35mm already in its first version that I gave away after just three months for its poor quality, version II is much better than the first, but in the end I sold this perspective also, in truth less than its analogous version Nikon and Zeiss (Sony). The sharpness is good only at the center and for my kind of photography are not bearable edges so soft and mixed (are acceptable f: 6.3). The maximum focal my old and cheap Canon 35mm fixed f: 2 has virtually torn this zoom. After selling it (along with the 24-70 f: 2.8, it also, at least for me, disappointing the edges) bought two Zeiss Distagon, the 21mm and 28, as well as the 50mm, and the music has changed so evident ( Certainly there is always the trouble of changing perspective, but when I started to photograph the zoom does not exist or so, so I'm pretty used to). |
 | sent on December 10, 2011 Pros: Brightness, strength, sharpness (center image) Cons: Price, made the edges, made in 35mm Opinion: I had this lens and used it with satisfaction. But I gave in after 6 months of ownership to buy the 17-40 + 70-200 smooth and I do not regret it at all. From a zoom so noble and expensive I would have expected more. Great for those who need a diaphragm f2, 8; under these conditions returns file disappointing. Very well indoors. But if you have to use diaphragmed has nothing more than the 17-40 that vivmente advice for the best value for money, of course this is my experience. My copy had a yield at the edges or at least not up to par with the 17-40. A 35mm I found the same probelmatiche other members who have commented. Excellent sharpness in the center of the frame and colors. No comment distortion at 16mm because I like a lot to the effect creatifo that you can get. It 'a very good zoom, but I would recommend spending only to those who should require the aperture. |
  | sent on November 06, 2011 Pros: Build quality and colors. Cons: sharpness in the corners at 2.8, made in 35mm lower than the rest of the focal vignetting at 16mm. Opinion: I use this lens for landscapes for many years. Good sharpness and made the corners with small apertures. Good resistance to flare. AC controlled and almost absent. Colors and contrast ottimi.rnDistorce lot, but the landscape is not a problem ... I can get in the photography of architecture and interior design, but you know that we are slow to specifiche.rnrnLa sharpness at the edges to 2.8 is a bit 'deficient, so much that I prefer other lenti.rnrnA 35mm the sharpness is good but not comparable to the remaining focal, if not f11.rnrnConsiglio highly recommend this lens, capable of restoring images that are easy, comfortable and lightweight trasportare.rnrnAggiorno review after bought the 16-35 f4 IS: if you do not absolutely need Aperture 2.8, I recommend buying this lens as the optical performance is really on another livello.rnrnrnrnrn |
 | sent on September 28, 2011 Pros: f/2.8, colors, contrast Cons: Cost, Distortion, Filter diameter, 35mm Yield Opinion: My view on this lens is "poor" for a number of reasons: Distortion at 16mm is unworthy (considering what he has accomplished sigma 12mm) L-series resistance have little flare of Your Best to the version that was bad. The yield to 35mm is far below expectations (better to have an EF 35 f / 2) has a brightness interesting for certain types of photography (but getting better closing of a stop) the colors and contrast are not discussed. Costs twice as much of the baby 17-40L but in my opinion not worth it, need filters (82mmm) slim expensive and usually prone to trigger and Flare "ghost image" if they are of excellent quality. Council to consider the need for good f/2.8 before investing 1200 euros. |
 | sent on September 27, 2011 Pros: Excellent costruzione.Possibilità to make the focus a short distance (28 cm). Ability to mount a filter. Cons: Need filters "slim" antivignettatura Opinion: Waiting for a 14-24 canon we have to "fall back" on this 16-35. Excellent brightness and focus speed. Exemplary distortion correction to 16 mm. I think it is an essential objective if you want to exploit the potential of video, such as the EOS 5D Mark II, because with the wide-angle focal in virtue of their large depth of field will manage to overcome the limits of focus in Live View. Pretenderei this category from a perspective of greater clarity, although already very good. It may be, however, that this limit is to be charged to a certain degree of variability among the items produced. |
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
