Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item
Equipment Profile

 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Classified Ads
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions

Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.



Canon - EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM
Quick Overview |
To meet the growing demand of digital SLR owners, this ultra-wide-angle zoom offers a broader view, fast aperture, and closer focusing down to 11 in. (.28m). The first EF wide-angle zoom to combine three aspherical elements and Canon’s UD glass, the lens remains compact while providing superior image quality across its range. Constructed to pro standards, it’s also highly resistant to dust and moisture.

SportsShooter Member Rating | 9.23
List Price | $1499.00
More Information |

|| Member Feedback   [add your comments]
Kent Smith Photographer
Charlotte | NC | USA
Comments | [02/05/07] Okay. This one is worth the money. The color contrast is very nice on the new 16-35. I would recommend to all individuals who love to get wide without going to wide.
Rating | 9

Shane Canfield Photographer
Alexandria | VA | USA
Comments | [02/04/07] Great lens, sharp wide open, very fast AF, build quality is excellent, and close focus distance is a plus. Well worth the premium price.
Rating | 10

Jason Watson Student/Intern / Photographer
Charlottesville | VA | USA
Comments | [12/09/06] Great lens - next to the 70-200/2.8 I use this lens the most. Very sharp.
Rating | 10

JohnPaul Greco Photographer / Assistant
Waukesha | WI | USA
Comments | [11/27/06] It's not a "bad" lens,... that's for sure,... But it isn't a "great" lens either.. It's the best lens I can get in this range, and f-stop.. The close focusing distance is a really nice feature.. The CA is still noticable, but about 1/2 that of what it is like on the 17-35mm f2.8 L lens, which IMO, was a major P.O.S. It is noticably sharper than the old 17-35 L,..and the AF is a tad faster in my estimation.. but it is just as somewhat accurate as the 17-35L was.. Strangely, I find myself using this lens when I absolutely have to.. otherwise I will use my 24-70 L..
Rating | 7

Matthew Putney Photographer / Assistant
Waterloo | IA | USA
Comments | [08/29/06] I have not had good luck with my 16-35mm. I find the lens to be soft at F2.8 and sometimes F4. I also agree with Matthias Krause I am not a fan of the distortion at 16mm. I have used 3 different 16-35mm. I gave up and bought a very sharp and wonderful lens the canon 20mm USM 2.8.
Rating | 6

Andrew Villa Student/Intern / Photographer
Dublin | CA | United States
Comments | [07/29/06] Got this lens about 4 weeks ago and have to say I love it. Its close focusing distance is amazing as is the color, sharpness and bokeh. Build quality is great and it sure is an upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens I had been using previously for my wide angle work.
Rating | 10

david pardo Student/Intern / Photographer
Walnut | ca | USA
Comments | [05/21/06] Their's nothing to improve on this's perfect...except for the fact that Canon needs to do something about making sure every lens is exceptions Canon...My first copy was soft...and i didn't beileve the other treads claiming that some copies are bad. After recently purchasing my 2nd copy...I must admit that it's like NIGHT AND DAY. Lens is really sharp, and the manual focusing ring is perfect....
Rating | 10

Eugene Harding Photo Editor / Photographer
Fort Wayne | IN | U.S.A.
Comments | [03/08/06] I use this lens for almost all of photojournalistic work. You cannot beat the crispness of the lens. Check out my shot of the backboard cam. That was taken looking through the usual crappy plexy glass backboards at about 1200 ASA, 1/250 at 2.8. Plus this photo was downsized to work on the web. What more can you say. The lens rocks!
Rating | 10

David Harpe Photographer
Louisville | KY | USA
Comments | [12/16/05] When I first switched to Canon, I bought a copy of this lens and it was incredibly soft. Not knowing about the sample variance issue, I took it back and used the 17-40. I recently bought another copy of the 16-35 and boy what a difference! My new copy is very sharp at all zoom settings. If you buy this lens, be prepared to take a few back before you get a sharp one, or work with a local dealer that will let you try-before-you-buy. Once you get one that is sharp you will be very pleased.
Rating | 9

Seng Chen Photographer / Assistant
Berkeley | CA | USA
Comments | [11/24/05] I bought this lens after owning a 17-40/4 and there are times when I regret spending twice as much. Doesn't seem quite as sharp on the wide end, though both lenses are very good. Now that I'm using the 5D, I like that I can really go wide, but I would trade 1mm on the short side for 5mm on the long side if I didn't have to give up the stop. Overall, a really nice lens, but in hindsight I wouldn't have been so hasty to sell the f/4.
Rating | 9

Wade Laube Photographer
Sydney | NSW | Australia
Comments | [11/03/05] Distortion qualities are notably better than the previous model. The improved minimum focussing distance sounds good, but I have distortion phobia. A great handling lens, and a great general purpose lens if you keep a watch for wide angle distortion. By the way, it takes a hammering.
Rating | 9

Oscar Sosa Photographer
Jacksonville | FL | USA
Comments | [05/25/05] This lens is fast, quiet and sharp. I love the close focus. This is so good I sold my 14mm because I just didn't use it anymore. This is the most important lens in my bag.
Rating | 10

Neil Turner Photographer
London | UK | United Kingdom
Comments | [05/13/05] I thought that I had added my review of this lens when I first joined SS but it seems that I hadn't. I got my 16-35 in September 2002 and so mine is a well used example. The good points are that the close focusing, weather proofing and overall sharpness are excellent and a big improvement over my well loved 17-35. On the downside there is noticeable distortion through most of the zoom range. I use this lens when I need WIDE and I use the 24-70 if I want accurate. The 16-35 should come with a small warning about WA distortion for those who think lenses this wide can be made without it. Back in the real world I would find it almost impossible to live without this lens.
Rating | 9

Joseph Mugno Student/Intern
Rockville Centre | NY | United States
Comments | [04/08/05] Perfect lens. I don't care about linear distortion. It's part of the territory when lenses are this wide in terms of degrees. Great for photojournalistic work and close up shots. Would never trade it for anything in its class.
Rating | 10

Craig Mitchelldyer Photographer / Assistant
Milwaukie (Portland) | OR | USA
Comments | [12/19/04] Picked one of these up a few weeks ago after sticking mainly to primes...I goota say, i love it! It focus fast and is SHARP, noticably sharper than other lenses I was using. Don't hesitate to pick one of these up.
Rating | 10

Matthias Krause Photographer
Brooklyn | NY | USA
Comments | [12/11/04] Well, I've to say I'm surprised that everybody seems to love this lens. I found mine to be horrible. You can't shoot it wide open because it's soft and the barrel distortion @ 16 makes it pretty much useless for things like architecture or landscapes. But maybe I just got a lemon? It'll go off to CPS soon and if it's any better afterwards, I'll give you an update. As for now it's only a...
Rating | 4

Dirk Dewachter Photographer
Playa Del Rey | CA | USA
Comments | [12/10/04] For once I broke my rule not to buy anything that is critical as a used item well, I recently added a used 17-35mm to my collection of lenses and after noticing that the lens had some deficiencies. I contacted my salesperson and told him I'd gladly return the lens and upgrade a new 16-35mm. Wow, what a lens. This lens has a very short focus distance, nice angle of view, incredible depth of field and most importantly tack sharp. Comes in very handy shooting subjects in confined areas and when you want to include a nice perspective.
Rating | 10

Nathan Simpson Photographer / Student/Intern
Santa Barbara | CA | USA
Comments | [12/04/04] I love my 16-35. I use it on probably 2/3rds of my shoots. It has the cool wide angelness of a fish eye but with out all the distortion. It is incredibly sharp and the AF is fast. Although I rarely use AF I think I might start using it more with this lens because it is so accurate. I say it is defiantly worth dishing out the bucks to get one.
Rating | 10

Drew Rose Student/Intern
Manhattan | KS | USA
Comments | [11/19/04] I went from the old 20-35 2.8 L lens to this one and the i must say its been an incredible change. My images are razor sharp, the focus is light years faster than before, esp in low light situations. Not to mention using it on a 1D its wider than i've shot in a long time. I would recommend this lens if your willing to fork over the dough, i think it was worth every penny
Rating | 9

Greg Drzazgowski Photographer / Photo Editor
Tallahassee | FL | USA
Comments | [10/18/04] The close focusing on this lens is by far its most impressive feature. Images are razor sharp. Would have liked to have the focus and zoom rings switched, not used to having zoom ring closer to the camera. An amazing piece of glass, well worth the money. Makes 1.6x magnification seem to disappear. Even more amazing with film.
Rating | 10

David Rabian Photographer
Wilmington | DE | USA
Comments | [10/05/04] Big long lenses are fun. After getting this lens, I have to say I'm gaining a real appreciation for fun to be had at the other end of the spectrum. I never knew wide angle stuff could be as razor sharp as this thing is, even at the 'open' end. If you don't really have the money for a BIG lens, but are serious about your photography in general, you should give some real consideration to investing in this lens. You may find it a better return on your investment. I can see why some of the folks have said they rarely take it off their bodies. There's some 'wow' factor here.
Rating | 10

Kevin M. Cox Photographer / Assistant
Round Rock (Austin) | TX | US
Comments | [09/15/04] I never used to shoot wide and my "default" go-to lens was always the 28-70. After I mentioned to SS member Alex Jones that I was thinking of buying one but didn't think I'd use it much he replied, "once you have it, you'll use it all the time." Man was he right! I never used the 17-35 so I can't compare, but I really like this lens. The 28-70 doesn't come out of my bag very often these days because I'm using the 16-35 all the time. Very sharp and quick focusing, you won't be disappointed.
Rating | 9

Jamm Aquino Photographer / Student/Intern
Honolulu | HI | usa
Comments | [05/12/04] Great Lens!! It rarely comes off of my 10D, and is a great wide to normal (50mm) lens.
Rating | 10

Pablo Galvez Photographer
Calgary | AB | CANADA
Comments | [05/06/04] This is a great lens and is the first lens I put on my camera when indoors. It makes me wish I had a 1Ds to take advantage of the full-frame possibilities this lens would offer. As with most wide angle lenses, there is still a bit of distortion near the edges of the frame even with a 1.3 crop of the 1D. The 10D will show little/no distortion at the edges. I highly recommend this lens.
Rating | 9

Michael King Photographer / Student/Intern
Athens | OH | USA
Comments | [01/21/04] razor sharp images and it's got a great range for the DSLRs. I use it with the 10D right now and I no longer feel too limited by the 1.6x crop factor. Being a student I questioned the major expense, but I've come to my senses and realized that it's well worth it to spend the cash to buy excellent glass that will give you superior images.
Rating | 10

Jeff Lewis Photographer
Long Beach | CA | USA
Comments | [08/18/03] Great lens. I use it on my 10D.
Rating | 10

Dave Cheng Photographer
Toronto | ON | Canada
Comments | [05/06/03] The close focusing capability of this lens is often overlooked. Sharp and contrasty wide-open and at any aperture, though those on a budget might consider the equally excellent 17-40mm f/4L for hundreds less. The massive hood is a pain to store in anything but the largest pouch, and the AF/MF switch is far too easy to knock out-of-position. Otherwise, a great piece of glass that lives on my 1D as my "Normal" lens...
Rating | 9

Billy Suratt Photographer / Photo Editor
Russell Springs | KY | USA
Comments | [12/04/02] I skipped the 17-35/2.8 because of its softness and upgraded to this lens from the 20-35/2.8. What a great lens! The rubber gasket around the lensmount is a really nice touch, though the lens isn't very useful in the rain because the hood is so shallow (which should be expected, given the wide focal length). If you appreciate lenses that feel a little hefty like I do, then you'll love this baby.
Rating | 10

Vincent Laforet Photographer
New York | NY | USA
Comments | [07/27/02] Bert - didn't you mean you 1D? not yar D1... I think this is one of the best lenses in the Canon line - and for once, I think it is absolutely logical to upgrade to this lens from your 17~35 - I agree with Bert that the 17~35 was rarely very sharp - this new lens in incredibly sharp - and being able to shoot twice as close makes it a great wide-portrait lens - you can shoot with this zoom pretty much the same way you used to shoot with fixed lenses - and expect comparable sharpness and distortion.
Rating | 10

Robert Hanashiro Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | USA
Comments | [07/22/02] Just recently added the 16-35 zoom to my arsenel of lenses. It is noticable bigger when I put it next to my old 17-35 however it doesn't feel a lot heavier. The new 16-35 focuses closer and while I have only used it for 3 shoots, it seems to be crisp in the viewfinder and snaps into focus rather quickly. A quick look at my recent shoots with the lens shows me that it is vrey sharp. I always thought my 16-35 was a bit soft and had it into CPS several times for that problem. The zoom range, especially with the D1, is ideal ... 20.8 - 45.5. This is a keeper!
Rating | 9

[add your comments]

Copyright 2022,