Canon 16-35 II best wide angle lens?

my colleague had a 16-35 and i could compare it with my 17-40

he has the benefit of shooting at 16mm vs my 17mm, but his lens distorts buildings much more than mine

and i felt that the difference in price didn't justify the gain of 1mm

so far i'm very happy with my 17-40

So what is the deal with this lens? Ther review from landscape guy says t has least amount of distortion, someone else says more, some say sharp enough, some say total waste of money. I have done nothing but read conflicting info about this lens and it seems to be the one canon lens that no one really agree on.


The only reason I have not gotten a 6d yet is because I am not really into any of the options for wide angle from canon/sigma and I really won't spend $3k on a Zeiss 15. So basically that leaves me with the 14 rokinon/samyang as the best canon wide angle lens?? I need it for interiors, but can't use a tripod a lot so I am not sure if a ts lens for that scenario works as well, and the 14L seems not $1650 better than the Korean 14s, so.....


I think I will have to buy the 16-35 and then determine for myself if it is worth keeping or not in the end.

Nick3434 wrote in post #16436812
So what is the deal with this lens? Ther review from landscape guy says t has least amount of distortion, someone else says more, some say sharp enough, some say total waste of money. I have done nothing but read conflicting info about this lens and it seems to be the one canon lens that no one really agree on.


The only reason I have not gotten a 6d yet is because I am not really into any of the options for wide angle from canon/sigma and I really won't spend $3k on a Zeiss 15. So basically that leaves me with the 14 rokinon/samyang as the best canon wide angle lens?? I need it for interiors, but can't use a tripod a lot so I am not sure if a ts lens for that scenario works as well, and the 14L seems not $1650 better than the Korean 14s, so.....


I think I will have to buy the 16-35 and then determine for myself if it is worth keeping or not in the end.

What worries you about the samyang? Being 14 mm, it has the most dof and focus is fairly easy. 14 is much wider than 16 as well, so choose carefully.

I was very happy with my 17-40L. I just recently sold it and purchased the 16-35L II because I needed the extra stop for event photography. I haven't put it through its paces yet, but will report back once I do. From a build quality and feel, the 16-35 feels much more solid, or dense, than the 17-40. It may be the added weight, but it just feels better in the hand.

nottoosharp wrote in post #16436721
I sold my copy of the 16-35 II because it was too soft (especially in the corners). I use wide angles for landscaping only, so never needed a zoom or AF. I now replaced it with the Rokinon 14mm, Zeiss 21mm and TS-E 24 II.

I thought of this set up, as I am rethinking my current line up.

However I have also considered the 14 Rokinson, 17 tse, and 24tse, much better spread of FL

I know the 14 Samyang/Rokinson is a great bang for the buck for what it does.

I know the 21 & 24 are quite close in FL, and understand folks like the 21 for it's rendering. Where as the 14, 17 & 24 give you more FL spread .

I know the 17 needs a special filter because of its front element, not sure if the 14 also requires a special filter .... Things to consider...

Also aware you can use the 21 or 24 shot vertical pano to give you a wider FL

I have used both the 17 & 24 tse and the 16 -35 II , no experience with the 14 Samyang or Zeiss 21 .

I own a 17-40, and after using the 16-35 II, I fill the 16-35 II, gives you more micro contrast detail...

With all that said, still not sure which way is the best way to fly.

The only reason to go to the 16-35 from the 17-40 would be the f/2.8. Optically, they are near identical.

I have the 17-40 and love it. May not be the sharpest lens, but I have a great copy and really enjoy it. Stopped down, the corners and edges are fine enough for me. If I need maximum sharpness to the edge, I'll use my 24-70 II.

I own the 16-35 and have used the 17-40. If all you are looking for is improved sharpness, I am not sure the 16-35 is going to give you what you're looking for. IQ is very comparable between these two lenses IMHO.

Somebloke wrote in post #16436645
Post some examples of your dissapointing corner sharpness please?

thank you. the 16-35L II is the most disrespected lens that most commenters have never owned. the corner sharpness thing is squaking of internet parrots.

Invertalon wrote in post #16437120
The only reason to go to the 16-35 from the 17-40 would be the f/2.8. Optically, they are near identical.

I have the 17-40 and love it. May not be the sharpest lens, but I have a great copy and really enjoy it. Stopped down, the corners and edges are fine enough for me. If I need maximum sharpness to the edge, I'll use my 24-70 II.

this is a common claim by 17-40L owners but having owned both I believe the 16-35L II is better. I also makes the best star pattern of any lens I have owned.

Nick3434 wrote in post #16436812
So what is the deal with this lens? Ther review from landscape guy says t has least amount of distortion, someone else says more, some say sharp enough, some say total waste of money. I have done nothing but read conflicting info about this lens and it seems to be the one canon lens that no one really agree on.

The only reason I have not gotten a 6d yet is because I am not really into any of the options for wide angle from canon/sigma and I really won't spend $3k on a Zeiss 15. So basically that leaves me with the 14 rokinon/samyang as the best canon wide angle lens?? I need it for interiors, but can't use a tripod a lot so I am not sure if a ts lens for that scenario works as well, and the 14L seems not $1650 better than the Korean 14s, so.....

I think I will have to buy the 16-35 and then determine for myself if it is worth keeping or not in the end.

most detractors have never owned the 16-35L II -- they are parroting what they've read -- or are defending their 17-40L. look at the guy's work and come to you own conclusion. also, another excellent photographer our own kevindar has owned all the wide angle lenses discussed including the Nikon and says the 16-35LII is the one he uses the most.

Invertalon wrote in post #16437120
The only reason to go to the 16-35 from the 17-40 would be the f/2.8. Optically, they are near identical.

I have the 17-40 and love it. May not be the sharpest lens, but I have a great copy and really enjoy it. Stopped down, the corners and edges are fine enough for me. If I need maximum sharpness to the edge, I'll use my 24-70 II.

you won't get 16mm from the 24-70L or the 17-40.

This will seem crazy and is out of the box thinking...
But picking up a cheap crop body and grabbing the EXCELLENT Tokina 11-16 would be in the same price range as some of these suggestions and would yield excellent results. That Tokina is just awesome!

I happen to agree with Ed, and confirm Kevin is one heck of a photographer.


Also agree with lens pirate, use the 16 end on the 5D all the time, and the 11-16 on the crop.

ed rader wrote in post #16437434
you won't get 16mm from the 24-70L or the 17-40.

17mm vs 16mm is not that substantial (for me). Close enough. Maybe 14mm vs 17mm, sure.

Somebloke wrote in post #16436645
Post some examples of your dissapointing corner sharpness please?

here we go

ed rader wrote in post #16436608
I believe so. here's a read that might interest you.

http://www.dpreview.co​m/forums/post/52456916

thanks going to give this a read now

Todd Lambert wrote in post #16436713
I've tried most of the wide options for Canon, since I'm primarily a wide shooter.. and I will tell you this, the best ultra wide lens for Canon (and arguable on other platforms as well) is the 17 TS-E.

It's amazingly sharp, extremely versatile and can get wider than just about anything out there if you want to do some shift panos.

My only gripe is the flaring which can be pretty bad in intense lighting.

i think im going to just pull the trigger, however it is nice to have the zoom option

lens pirate wrote in post #16437458
This will seem crazy and is out of the box thinking...
But picking up a cheap crop body and grabbing the EXCELLENT Tokina 11-16 would be in the same price range as some of these suggestions and would yield excellent results. That Tokina is just awesome!

i had that lens when i had the original Xsi, i swear i was amazed on how sharp that lens was. I wish they made a full frame equivalent.