Best Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Best built for the unique demands of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens. Look at our special deals today on our store. Get more and spend less when you buy Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens. Also read our Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens reviews before you decide to buy Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens. Anything you have to know about this item, The Best Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens Reviews
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens Reviews
Many customers was gave reviews and ratings to Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens. If you want to read those detail to make your decision on this product just CLICK HERE
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens Overview:
- 16-35mm ultra-wide-angle zoom lens with f/2.8 maximum aperture
- 3 high-precision aspherical lens elements produce superior image quality
- Circular aperture produces natural background blur at wider apertures
- Ring-type USM for fast and quiet autofocusing; internal focusing
- Measures 3.5 inches in diameter and 4.4 inches long; 1-year warranty
- Measures 3.5 inches in diameter and 4.4 inches long , 1-year warranty
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens Reviews, On Sale Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens, buy Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens, Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens best buy, Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens Discount, Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens For Sale
Home Theater System Reviews Us Lacrosse Reviews Best Hard Drives
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens Reviews
154 of 159 people found the following review helpful 
Modest improvement mostly for full frame users, January 6, 2008 By George (Salt Lake City, Utah) - See all my reviews This review is from: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens (Camera) I have owned both this and the original version. The new lens is better in the corners and flares less but the corners are still a little soft at f2.8 and you can get the lens to flare a little if you try. I haven't seen the loss of clarity above 20mm that others reported. Perhaps you would see a slight difference in eyelashes if you did a lot of portraits but this is probably not the best choice for a portrait lens. It is a somewhat better lens for shooting landscapes and other shots where edge to edge clarity is important.
But the differences between the two versions are minor and in some instances irrelevant. If you don't shoot a full frame camera the soft edges don't appear in the photo. And flare is a minimal issue at most. It rarely appears and is easy to fix in Photoshop if it does. I would opt for the original if I didn't shoot full frame based on the price difference alone.
My only problem with the original was when I had to shoot hand held... Read more
95 of 101 people found the following review helpful Going on vacation?, February 10, 2009 By This review is from: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens (Camera) Many people have stated the facts about this lens. Instead of restating them, let me add what I use it for:
For nature photography, this is the only lens I need. Just put something pretty in the foreground (flowers, rocks, etc.) and let the lens magically stretch out the horizon to add drama and flair to the shot. Makes beaches MAGICAL... Makes forests imposing. Adds desolation to the desert.
And from a business perspective:
As a wedding shooter, I use it to stretch out small/boring churches and make them more dramatic. It is also great to use from above for dancefloor shots and really makes the shots DYNAMIC and interesting.
And finally:
If you are deciding between this and the 17-40, let me save you some time... there is a huge difference between 16mm and 17mm. Don't waste time buying the 17 and then selling it at a loss to upgrade like I did.
If you're going to go wide.. go wide baby. ;)
40 of 41 people found the following review helpful Does exactly what its supposed to...a great UWA Zoom., September 30, 2009 By DSR "The Grumpy Moose" (Anchorage, Alaska) - See all my reviews This review is from: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens (Camera) I've read some pretty critical reviews of this lens; from my perspective some of these could be due to an occasional bad copy, but others are likely due to the owner expecting way too much from a UWA zoom lens. Most complaints center on lack of corner sharpness and/or light fall off/vignetting at the wide end and wide apertures. I've owned and extensively tested 4 high end UWA Zooms to date now; the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L II, the 17-40 f4 L, the EF-s 10-22, and the Nikon 14-24 2.8 ED (the accepted gold standard for UWA Zooms), and can tell you that the Nikon is the only one that can reasonably (but not perfectly) hold the corners at the extreme wide ends of FL and aperture. Not surprisingly however the Nikon is yet another $400-$500 more expensive than the 16-35II (even more when you factor in the adapter to shoot on a Canon). In real world shooting at f/8 to f/16 however, I can confidently state that you are not going to see any meaningful difference between the 4 lenses without... Read more
› See all 89 customer reviews...
| 154 of 159 people found the following review helpful Modest improvement mostly for full frame users, By George (Salt Lake City, Utah) - See all my reviews This review is from: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens (Camera) I have owned both this and the original version. The new lens is better in the corners and flares less but the corners are still a little soft at f2.8 and you can get the lens to flare a little if you try. I haven't seen the loss of clarity above 20mm that others reported. Perhaps you would see a slight difference in eyelashes if you did a lot of portraits but this is probably not the best choice for a portrait lens. It is a somewhat better lens for shooting landscapes and other shots where edge to edge clarity is important.But the differences between the two versions are minor and in some instances irrelevant. If you don't shoot a full frame camera the soft edges don't appear in the photo. And flare is a minimal issue at most. It rarely appears and is easy to fix in Photoshop if it does. I would opt for the original if I didn't shoot full frame based on the price difference alone. My only problem with the original was when I had to shoot hand held... Read more 95 of 101 people found the following review helpful Going on vacation?, By This review is from: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens (Camera) Many people have stated the facts about this lens. Instead of restating them, let me add what I use it for:For nature photography, this is the only lens I need. Just put something pretty in the foreground (flowers, rocks, etc.) and let the lens magically stretch out the horizon to add drama and flair to the shot. Makes beaches MAGICAL... Makes forests imposing. Adds desolation to the desert. And from a business perspective: As a wedding shooter, I use it to stretch out small/boring churches and make them more dramatic. It is also great to use from above for dancefloor shots and really makes the shots DYNAMIC and interesting. And finally: If you are deciding between this and the 17-40, let me save you some time... there is a huge difference between 16mm and 17mm. Don't waste time buying the 17 and then selling it at a loss to upgrade like I did. If you're going to go wide.. go wide baby. ;) 40 of 41 people found the following review helpful Does exactly what its supposed to...a great UWA Zoom., By DSR "The Grumpy Moose" (Anchorage, Alaska) - See all my reviews This review is from: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens (Camera) I've read some pretty critical reviews of this lens; from my perspective some of these could be due to an occasional bad copy, but others are likely due to the owner expecting way too much from a UWA zoom lens. Most complaints center on lack of corner sharpness and/or light fall off/vignetting at the wide end and wide apertures. I've owned and extensively tested 4 high end UWA Zooms to date now; the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L II, the 17-40 f4 L, the EF-s 10-22, and the Nikon 14-24 2.8 ED (the accepted gold standard for UWA Zooms), and can tell you that the Nikon is the only one that can reasonably (but not perfectly) hold the corners at the extreme wide ends of FL and aperture. Not surprisingly however the Nikon is yet another $400-$500 more expensive than the 16-35II (even more when you factor in the adapter to shoot on a Canon). In real world shooting at f/8 to f/16 however, I can confidently state that you are not going to see any meaningful difference between the 4 lenses without... Read more |
› See all 89 customer reviews...
