The Web    Google
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
List Price: $2300.00

Our Price: $1399.00

You Save: $901.00 (39%)


Product Description

Inner focusing system with USM Closest Focusing Distance 0.28m / 0.9 ft. Zoom System Rotating type Filter Size 82mm Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 3.3" x 4.1", 1.3 lb. / 83.5 x 103mm, 600g

Broaden your perspective with the Canon EF 16-35mm ultra-wide-angle zoom lens. Specifically designed for improved edge-to-edge image quality that meets the strict requirements of professional and high-end amateur photographers alike, the lens lets you bring more area into focus while providing greater depth of field. The lens features three high-precision aspherical lens elements--ground, replica, and GMo--that produce even better image quality than the original Canon EF 16-35mm USM lens. The circular aperture, meanwhile, produces a beautiful and natural background blur when shooting at wider apertures. Other details include internal focusing, a ring-type ultra-sonic monitor (USM), and new AF algorithms for fast and quiet autofocusing. The lens carries a one-year warranty.

  • Focal length: 16-35mm
  • Maximum aperture: f/2.8
  • Lens construction: 16 elements in 12 groups
  • Diagonal angle of view: 108 degrees (at 10 feet) to 63 degrees
  • Focus adjustment: AF with full-time manual
  • Closest focusing distance: 0.92 feet
  • Filter size: 82mm, P=0.75mm/1 filter
  • Dimensions: 3.5 inches in diameter, 4.4 inches long
  • Weight: 1.41 pounds
  • 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

Customer Reviews:

  • To me, worth the price difference over the 17-40L.
    I've had this lens for almost a year, but hadn't used it much until this weekend, as my Sigma 30mm & 50mm f/1.4 lenses were better fits for low-light situations. However, this weekend I took it to Pawnee National Grassland for some shooting, and I must say, I'm very glad I purchased this lens! At the time, the 17-40mm f/4L was very attractive due to its low price, but I went with the 16-35mm because of its better low-light performance. I love the pictures this lens produces! And having f/2.8 instead of f/4 might not seem like a lot of difference, but it is. The only thing that could make this lens better would be Image Stabilization (IS), but I'm fine without that as I can use my Sigma lenses if I really need the low-light performance. If you look at my posted photo of a windmill, you'll see what this lens and a total amateur are capable of!

    If you would really be stretching your budget to buy this lens, the 17-40mm f/4L and a fast Sigma prime might be a better option for you, but if you can afford it, this lens will thank you for years! This lens, paired with a fast 50mm (f/1.2-1.8) lens, a 135mm f/2L (for full-frame cameras) or the 85mm f/1.2L (for "cropped sensor" cameras), and a 70-200mm of some sort, will keep you content for years. (Unless of course you're a birder, in which case you can never spend enough money on lenses!)

    Final Analysis: If you're really considering this lens, get it. If you don't, you'll always wonder. The lack of IS in this range makes it even more important for your zoom lenses to be f/2.8. If it's a huge stretch to afford this lens, get the 17-40mm f/4L and a fast 50mm lens, preferably the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX....more info
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Review
    I owned a pretty good copy of the original 16-35 and this one is slightly sharper in the middle, but most definitely sharper along the edges. You notice it most with a full frame sensor camera like the 1DS of 5D. ...more info
  • Good Canon L Lens but not for the price.
    Again, Canon L lens will never disappointed any photographers this 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is no exception and it will allow you to shoot in very tight pace without moving back, I had a chance to try it from my friend while I have my own EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM. This 16-35mm is going to give you super image quality with just a little distortion that you can't barely notice until you enlarge final print, to me it's nothing better than canon 24-70mm F/2.8L USM. Except its version II. I have also thanks to my best friend allows me to try it before I decide to make some upgrade. I'll keep my own.
    Here is some side by side comparison, so future users could use some help.

    EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
    Construction (groups-elements) 12-16
    Angle of View (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) 98กใ54กใ/ 74กใ10'38กใ/108กใ10'63กใ
    Number of Diaphragm Blades 7
    Closest Focusing Distance 0.28m
    Maximum Magnification 0.22x (at 35mm)
    Weight 640g

    EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
    Construction (groups-elements) 13-16
    Angle of View (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) 74กใ29กใ/ 53กใ19กใ30'/ 84กใ34กใ
    Number of Diaphragm Blades 8
    Closest Focusing Distance 0.38m (MACRO)
    Maximum Magnification 0.29x (at 70mm)
    Weight 950g

    As you can see 16-35mm is bit more advantage angle of view over 24-70mm but it can not compare to 24-70mm at construction, group and elements / number of blade / Marco shooting and the price.
    The choice is yours.
    ...more info
  • Outstanding!
    So.. I had the 24-70 2.8L, which I bought 3 years ago. I used it as a work horse for weddings/portraits.

    Two years ago, I started buying the Canon L Primes. I first bought the 85 1.2, then 35 1.4 and then the 50 1.2. I have a SIGMA 70-200 2.8 (No intentions in buying the canon version as they are the same if you know what you are doing). I have two 5D bodies.

    Anyway, recently, I was debating in selling my 24-70 for the 16-35 because I had pretty much all SERIOUS primes after the 35mm range. So there was no real reason to shoot with the 24-70 for me.

    Now that I gave a little background on where I am coming from. Let me just say that this lens is simply amazing!

    The colors and the saturation is awesome! Indoor photos as well as outdoor landscapes come out phenomenal straight out of the camera.

    To me this lens is more versatile than the 24-70L.

    Not sure about the negative reviews but my copy is sharp End to End.

    Highly highly recommend it!...more info
  • Sharp as a blade
    I purchased this lens based on a recommendation from a friend and other reviews I read.

    It is absolutely fantastic. From its sharpness to its build, I can not fault this lens. It is a little heavy but it's nicely balanced on a 400D Camera body with battery grip.

    The price is very attractive on amazon, as you would see this lens go for around 20-30% more on ebay.

    Definitely recommend it if you are serious about your photography....more info
  • great lens and great photos
    Having the lens for 5 days, I am very happy with this lens. This is my first L lens and it is much better than any of other lenses. The lens was put on my XTI camera. I ignored all the comments that this lens does not match this camera. What I wanted to do is to get nice pictures on the camera on hand. Widness is not the only issue to measure the quality of the lens. I uploaded one picture and definitely that is not the best picture because I am still improving my photographic skills.

    Bought $1350 at Buydig with a $150 Heleopan UV filter. ...more info
  • As expected
    Like all "L" lenses, it is rather heavy. But that is the inconvenience you have to cope with if you want to have a superior lens. My test shots ALL came out as anticipated, fine details, sensitivity in low light conditions, and great colors. No regrets....more info
  • Disappointed
    Maybe, I'm just used to the clarity of my sub 2.0 aperture lenses. I'm not a professional by far, but I do notice a difference in quality/sharpness even when I set my 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.2 to 2.8. Don't get me wrong, its not a terrible lens, its just that I expected more for over 1K.

    I only have an EF-S wide-angle lens to compare to, and its obviously worse. Perhaps its unfair to judge between a fixed and a wide-angle lens?...more info
  • Better at 16, but goes soft after 24mm
    UPDATE: Since posting this review, I have done further experimentation and am coming to a conclusion (no new info from Canon thus far) that (in addition to this lens's gaussian factor) this new version is just more difficult for current camera bodies to focus, which is probably 70 percent of the problem that I'm seeing. Since this was released for the new 1DmIII camera body, we can hope that the 19 enhanced cross-type sensors will handle this lens better than current bodies. I am leaving the rest of the review as written, because the tradeoff against the long end is real, as is the gaussian effect beyond 24mm relative to the original version. Also because it accuratley reflects how others will encounter this same phenomenon. Based on this, I would up my star rating to 3.5 if they had decimals.... Also: Would like to clarify my remark below about it cleaning up the corners as advertised. I mean that remark to apply to the 16-20mm range only, because at 24mm I have a test shot showing a better corner from the original version I lens, which is to re-emphasize that 24mm is the point where the older lens takes over... END UPDATE

    Canon has hyped this new lens as an improvment over the great original 16-35, but in reality it's not a net improvment at all. Rather, it is just a tradeoff... What they're not telling you is that, compared to the original version, this lens goes soft at focal lengths beyond 24mm, where they are near the same in quality. I acknowledge that the new lens DOES clean up the corners as advertised, but if you shoot people for a living like I do, be prepared for soft eyes and disappearing eye lashes looking back at you. In many common shots this lens cannot resolve eye lashes at near distances, where the old version can and does... If you hate seeing soft eyes in a slew of your professional pictures, you will find some consternation in this lens just as I have... I am not happy with the compromise at all... Everything else about the lens is what you expect from a Canon L, which is to say it has awesome build quality and it's heavy. I have already owned two copies of this lens and have shot and tested a third. They all have the same softness problem. It was apparently a deliberate design compromise, but Canon's support techs have not yet been brought up to speed on how to explain or position this to customers, at least not in my experience. I have frustrated them by asking this question on the phone repeatedly, and they can't answer it. They're starting to get mad when I call back... I did send my first one in for calibration. They found something to adjust, but it did not help.... Moral of the story: If you like your original version, DON'T sell it. You need BOTH. This new one will effectively be your 16-20mm, and the old one will be your 24-35mm... I think it's very sad needing to carry two of the same lens, but that's what this situation has come to. We definitely needed a fix at 16mm, and this one provides it. But it comes at the expense of messing up the 24-35 range where the original version was awesome and where it is still the king.... Others have pointed that you can sub the 24-70/2.8 into this range, and I agree, but at the expense of having to change lenses way more often and having to always have the 24-70 available.... I'm finding this new situation very iconvenient.... Personally, I'm just going to think of this as the super bulky and inconvenient 16mm prime that they should have built instead.... Oh, and final note: Canon continues to make the old version of the 70-200/2.8L despite having added the IS version. I think this 16-35 thing should be that way, too, because many people who do my type of work for a living will choose the sharpness of the original lens over the corner-CA-elimination factor of the newer lens. If I had to choose just one of these lenses, I would choose the OLD one, which I would rate at 4.5 stars versus this turkey. I think discontinuation of the original version at this point in time would be both unwarranted and mildly insane. Can you tell I like sharp pictures? ...more info
  • Worth the price over the 17-40mm f/4
    I have both the 16-35MM II and the 17-40mm. At the end of the day the images produced by both lenses are sharp. The main difference is the speed. f/2.8 v f/4. When daylight turns to dusk and you're still shooting (ambient light) the option to open up the lens makes it worth it.

    Sure its twice the price but the ability to gather more light to get those shots makes it worth it. ...more info