DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Not quite there

Started Mar 4, 2016 | User reviews
Kostas Harvatis
Kostas Harvatis New Member • Posts: 2
Not quite there

Used to have the 17-40/4 for a couple of years, and then I sold it to get the 16-35. Double the price for that one extra mm and that one stop faster aperture. However, I am not completely satisfied with my "upgrade". The 16mm is quite a difference compared to the 17, much more important (for this lens class) than the 2.8. But the lens has a very annoying moustache distortion and is not as sharp as I'd expect it. All and all, it's a just a good lens, and a rather mediocre lens (in value/money terms). On the bright side, it's lightweight.

Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM
Wideangle zoom lens • Canon EF • 1910B002
Announced: Feb 22, 2007
Kostas Harvatis's score
3.0
Average community score
4.5
Chris Wolfgram
Chris Wolfgram Veteran Member • Posts: 6,661
Re: Not quite there

Hmmm. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by mustache distortion ? Considering all the 5 star reviews, and only a few 4's (and my 6 months experience with this lens, as well)  I'd have to believe you must be the one who got a bad copy

-- hide signature --

Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809

 Chris Wolfgram's gear list:Chris Wolfgram's gear list
Canon EOS R7 Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM +1 more
hotdog321
hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,141
Re: Not quite there

How is the edge sharpness at f/2.8 compared to the previous versions? That was a major plus with the 16-35 f/4L IS as opposed to previous f/2.8 versions.

-- hide signature --
 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
diness Veteran Member • Posts: 3,758
Re: Not quite there

hotdog321 wrote:

How is the edge sharpness at f/2.8 compared to the previous versions? That was a major plus with the 16-35 f/4L IS as opposed to previous f/2.8 versions.

Hey Craig, just note, he is reviewing the 16-35 ii, not the new iii version.  I believe you owned the version ii at one point right?

 diness's gear list:diness's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
hotdog321
hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,141
Re: Not quite there

diness wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

How is the edge sharpness at f/2.8 compared to the previous versions? That was a major plus with the 16-35 f/4L IS as opposed to previous f/2.8 versions.

Hey Craig, just note, he is reviewing the 16-35 ii, not the new iii version. I believe you owned the version ii at one point right?

Oh, thanks. Totally overlooked that--I just "assumed." Sloppy reading on my part.

I used the old version 1 for many years and never bothered with the version II since it really wasn't a major upgrade. When the f/4 IS version came out and I jumped on it. Man, it blew the old version 1 out of the water!

-- hide signature --
 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads