fotografer jogja

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II by Kenrockwell

Let me save you from reading the rest of this review. If you have $1,500, want the best ultra-wide zoom on the planet for your Canon full-frame (5D, 1Ds Mk III, etc.) or 1.3x (1D Mk III) camera and don't mind a little extra size and weight, just get one of these now. It is significantly sharper in the corners over the previous 16-35mm f/2.8, and focuses much more consistently.

After thousands of shots, I couldn't make a technically bad shot with this lens on my 5D. I just kept cranking out winners. Skip to the Available Light and Flare sections to see some examples.

If you only have $700, or prefer smaller and lighter, the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L has optics just as sharp. I've owned my 17-40mm for a year, and just borrowed this 16-35mm II to try out.

When I use any of these lenses, I'm usually using them at the 16mm or 17mm end. 16mm is much wider than 17mm, so I now may go buy this 16-35mm II. I bought my 17-40mm a year ago because it had better optics than the original 16-35mm.

If you have a 1.6x camera (Rebel, 40D, etc.), get the Canon 10-22mm EF-S instead for wide angles, or the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S IS if you want f/2.8.

Good:

1.) Sharp (better than original 16-35mm f/2.8, same as 17-40mm f/4 L)

2.) Easy operation; just works great and never gets in the way of a great photo.

3.) 7-bladed diaphragm.

4.) Canon USA is discounting the price by $100 from now through 13 January 2008. Canon calls these "instant rebates," which mean immediate discounts with nothing to mail in. At $1,339 (USA) at Adorama, it's the least expensive pro f/2.8 ultrawide zoom I can ever recall seeing.

Bad: Not much, but if I have to find something:

1.) 82mm filter thread (77mm is standard.) You'll have to buy a new filter or two, or I can hold my 77mm filters in front of the 16-35mm temporarily.

2.) If brick walls are your thing, like all ultrawide zooms, there is plenty of distortion at 16mm. Shoot at 21mm and it goes away, or fix it in DxO.

3.) Bigger and heavier than the previous big and heavy 16-35mm. It still isn't that bad, and is a few ounces (100g) less than my 70-200mm f/4 L IS. It's still comfortable to lug my 5D and this 16-35mm II around my neck all day.