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..

Buy Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

275 of 285 people found the following review helpful.
Going on vacation?
By Eric Slay
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. ;)

119 of 121 people found the following review helpful.
Does exactly what its supposed to...a great UWA Zoom.
By Amazon Customer
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 resorting to some serious pixel peeping gymnastics, and even then I'll gladly take bets that most couldn't tell the unlabeled photos apart. So confident in fact that I finally traded in my revered Nikon for an excellent copy of the 16-35II.

Yes, this lens exhibits some corner softness and light fall off at the wide end and/or at f2.8, however this starts to clear up nicely even as low as f/4 and is gone by f/8. By comparison, if you really want an eye opener, look at the vignetting on the 17-40 wide open (f/4) - two thirds of the image is dark with only a small central spot unaffected (incidentally, those that post that the 17-40 suffers no corner vignetting are probably shooting JPEG and not examining the RAW image). Contrast this to the 16-35 wide open at f/2.8 where only the extreme edges and corners are dark. Same with corner softness, it does exist at f/2.8 but clears up nicely by f/8. In all cases, if you shoot this lens at the same settings as the 17-40, it outperforms its smaller cousin in all aspects (and the 17-40 an excellent lens in its own right). The 16-35 is more than just a 17-40 that goes to f/2.8, it is a significant improvement at all apertures and focal lengths.

I did some extensive testing with filters and found, contrary to claims in other reviews, no detectible difference in vignetting between a slim or regular UV filter at the 16mm wide end. Maybe there is a slight difference that some purists can see, but for the life of me I can't tell the difference, so I use a regular thickness filter for the convenience of being able to use the normal dust cap. The 82mm filter size is also often cited as a point of criticism. Yes, 82mm filters are larger and more expensive, but that's the price you pay for a lens with these specifications. At least this lens will accept filters, try that with the Nikon. Finally, I've also heard criticism that this lens starts to go soft above 24mm, but I personally haven't seen any evidence of this either. Maybe those are bad copy issues again? But mine is perfectly sharp (stunningly sharp in the center) throughout the entire range.

In short, if you absolutely must have a UWA Zoom that has razor sharp corners at f/2.8, you're going to need to go to other extreme measures such as the Nikon 14-24 or maybe a Zeiss, but then you've got all of the manual focus/exposure issues to deal with. In most real world applications at f/8 to f/16, this lens easily holds it's own against the Nikon 14-24 and definitely edges out the 17-40. In my experience, if I am shooting at f/2.8, I'm likely trying to blur the background anyway, so why would I care if the corners are soft? And if shooting in low light I can't notice the vignetting in the corners either. In any case, it's easily corrected in DPP anyway.

244 of 258 people found the following review helpful.
Modest improvement mostly for full frame users
By George
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. Sometimes you can't bring a tripod along which rules out shooting at f16 or 22 so I occasionally ended up with shots that were soft in some of the edges. The new lens will solve that. That is the only reason I decided to upgrade.

I haven't used many other lenses in the same range so I can't compare quality with other makers but I'm not aware of anything reputed to be better. I have Canon primes as well as other Canon zooms and in actual use all are generally close in quality. I use the primes if possible when I plan to crop or enlarge a lot but I could still get by nicely with the zooms.

So, if you shoot less than full frame or if price is an issue, get the original. If you shoot full frame but need maximum clarity in the center (portraits for example), test both versions first. If you shoot full frame and need maximum edge to edge clarity, go with the new lens.

Update: Having shot this lens for a long period I would discount the comments about problems above 20mm. I owned the first version as well and I don't see a difference in the 20mm to 35mm range. On the contrary, I am increasingly impressed with the image quality and sharpness of this lens throughout the range. I recently used it into a very narrow slot canyon where I couldn't take more than the camera and the lens attached to it and took shots from 16mm up to 35mm that all came out very sharp and rich. Granted I wasn't shooting wide open because I needed lots of depth of field but the point is the lens delivered the best shots of that trip. In terms of versatility, this lens is unmatched for wide angle use by Canon owners. I also have the 14mm f2.8 II, 17mm f4. TS/E and 15mm fisheye for comparison. This is the one wide angle lens I always take along.

See all 166 customer reviews...More...

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens..

Grab Now Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

276 of 287 people found the following review helpful.
At long last, a Canon pancake lens for SLRs.
By Rick
"Pancake" lenses have always had an appeal to SLR shooters. Their dimunitive size and weight, as well as overall simplicity, make them ideal as walkaround lenses, and many find the focal length of 40mm (give or take a few mm) much to their liking for general photography. Contax, Pentax, Nikon and other manufacturers have produced their offerings throughout the modern photographic era. Panasonic and Olympus have pancake lenses for their micro 4/3 lenses. For some mysterious reason, Canon has remained silent on the issue since 1965, when it produced the FLP 38/2.8 for a limited time. Until now. Let the celebration begin.

I had the pleasure of owning the Pentax and Contax Zeiss lenses in the days of film. I loved them both, and they were never far from reach. When I bought Canon dSLRs, due to lack of any Canon pancake lens being available, I adapted both the Contax Zeiss and the Pentax pancakes to work on my 5D, 5D2 and 40D. Of course, this arrangement has serious limitations, as both the autofocus and the aperture have to be set manually, making for a slow, awkward shooting experience. At very long last, Canon has brought its own pancake lens to market, in the form of the EF 40/2.8 STM.

It is strikingly small and light, and if you've never seen or experienced a pancake lens before, you're likely to wonder how a lens can be so small and even work on full framed dSLRs. Despite its size, there is pleasing build quality to be found. Built nothing like the EF 50/1.8 II, there is a metal lens mount and a solid lens barrel, short as it is. Canon was barely able to fit the AF/MF switch on the barrel, the barrel is so short. I would compare build quality to the EF 50/1.4. Aesthetically, the 40 has a sex appeal all of its own. There's always been something about those pancakes and they way they look and feel. Canon certainly does not disappoint here.

Optically, I have found the 40/2.8 to perform in excellent fashion. CA is well-controlled, I have not experienced problems with flare, and I do not have a hood attached. Center sharpness at f/2.8 is excellent, and I have uploaded a photo here to help demonstrate. Corners look very good as well. Color rendition is excellent, and bokeh is much to my liking.

Mechanically, the AF is fast, quiet and accurate, and the new STM focus stepping motor technology is employed here. I don't shoot video, so I couldn't care less about the lens being quiet for filming of video, but that may we a huge deal for those of you that do use the video features of your dSLR.

While Canon points out that this lens makes it possible to shoot more discretely, I suppose that's true to a point. But it's rather difficult to achieve shooting discretion when the lens is mounted to the larger non-Rebel Canon bodies, being the big black blobs that they are. However, the pancake design does make your shooting experience very pleasant in that there is not a long lens sticking outing of it. Combined with the weight reduction, the shooting experience with this lens mounted to your camera is bliss. I will be using it a lot as a walkaround, and for vacations.

A possible issue with this lens concerns its use with a cropped sensor camera body. The crop on the 1.6x bodies results in a 64mm effective focal length. I'm not sure how useful a 64/2.8 lens would be for most shooters. For me, that's not very useful. You may disagree. I'll vouch for the usefulness of this lens on a full frame body.

I highly recommend this lens, and at this price point, it's a no-brainer to click the Buy button.

Happy snaps!

198 of 209 people found the following review helpful.
Great Lens (Even Greater for Full-Frame Cameras)
By Cinnamon
Before going into the details of my review, I'd like to start off by saying...if you have the money on hand, you should immediately buy this lens. I am extremely pleased so far - this is a lightweight, yet solidly built, and extremely affordable performer. While two hundred bucks doesn't seem "affordable" at first, it delivers very solid results that you could expect from lenses that cost several times as much.

To give some background: I do shoot professionally, but got this lens mostly for personal use - I simply prefer the versatility of a zoom lens for professional work, although seeing the impressive results I might incorporate it for future assignments. I currently own two bodies, a 5D Mark II and a 7D. While my main lenses are high-end (the 24-105L, 70-200L 2.8 IS II, and 100mm Macro), since I started off with a Rebel series body I also am familiar with a lot of the cheaper lenses Canon sells, including the 50mm f/1.8. I really liked the 50 f/1.8 because of its convenient size - but by comparison to this lens, it now seems big!

I love this 40mm f/2.8 lens on both of my bodies, but find its focal range to be much more useful on a full-frame than crop-sensor body. Keep in mind that if you have a crop body, the effective focal length of this lens comes out to 64mm! Even at that length, you can still get impressive shots with beautiful bokeh, but in my experience 64mm was more inconvenient to work with than 40mm. I'd still recommend it for APS-C bodies though, because the image quality thus far has been very impressive.

PROS
* Very small lens, which allows for much more inconspicuous shooting if you want to blend into the background. This lens is tiny! Yes, mounted on a battery-gripped SLR you still stand out a bit, but not nearly as much as you do with most other lenses
* Very light - this is much more portable than any other lens I own. You could even carry it in a pocket.
* Great image quality. I really am impressed at the results based on the low price point
* Impressive build quality. This lens might be inexpensive, but it doesn't feel cheap.

CONS
* Hard to manually adjust focus. This is my only major gripe with this lens. It is doable, but it definitely takes getting used to. This is especially pronounced if you have big hands. That being said, I think the convenience of the small lens size makes up for this minor inconvenience.
* Yes, as some other reviewers have already mentioned, there is some vignetting wide open. This doesn't bother me too much as I find the vignetting to be acceptable, but some others might not like it even if it can be corrected in post-processing - it depends on personal preference

CONCLUSIONS
I will try to upload photos demonstrating this lens' ability in the next few weeks; in the meantime, some people have already added to the gallery here, and undoubtedly many pictures will start appearing on Flickr.

Some people will inevitably find the need to ask why I gave the lens 5 stars if there are some cons. For the price I paid for this lens, I am very happy with my results, and think the cons are outweighed by the pros. The size and weight of this lens are remarkable, and its optical performance is great for the price. Sure, you could compare this lens to much more expensive ones and find more shortcomings, but I think for most people's use, this lens is a terrific buy. The other reviewers thus far also seem to be happy with their purchase, which I think is a testament to the performance of this lens. I highly recommend you go for it!

167 of 184 people found the following review helpful.
Small in size but great in features and quality
By Gil De Sousa, LensTests-com
Please don't take the Amazon star rating too serious - every lens has its pros and cons that I wouldn't want to squeeze into a single one-dimensional figure...
A quick note about me: I have been into SLR cameras and lenses for more than 20 years - as a hobby in the beginning and professionally later. Maybe because of my technical background I started testing my own lenses quite a while ago. I have a (no longer so) little test lab of my own where I do 6 different image quality tests (after taking a lens out for a while).

Canon's first-ever "pancake" EF lens is a real treat. It's so small that it looks like a 20 mm extension ring rather than a lens and yet it feels solid as a rock and delivers very respectable image quality. It comes with Canon's stepping motor technology (STM) that allows continuous AF during video recording or live-view mode (when used with a hybrid CMOS AF system) and that gives the lens a fast, silent and accurate autofocus performance. The EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is best used for street and travel photography but can also make great portraits or other things. Its maximum aperture of f/2.8 is great but not good enough for available light photography (which requires even lower f-stops i.e. wider apertures) and I would have loved to have an image stabilizer - but of course that would have been very difficult to build into a 2.7" x 0.9" (68 mm x 23 mm) lens.

In regard to image quality the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is really a high-end lens. The difference is most apparent if you compare it to a zoom lens but also amongst prime lenses of similar focal length the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is a high performer. The resolution is great straight from f/2.8 both in the image center and corners. If you use a fullframe camera the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a little sharper and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II is about as sharp as the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (compared at the same aperture). But if you shoot with an APS-C camera the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM easily outperforms both of those lenses (apparently it can cope better with the usually higher pixel density of APS-C cameras). It is roughly as sharp as the APS-C-only EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM (which is more than 3 times its size).

While the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM shows only very little distortion it does express some serious curvature of the focal plane ("field curvature") on a fullframe camera (none on an APS-C cam) but whether that's really visible in an actual image depends a lot on the subject you are shooting and the aperture you are using. Color fringes ("chromatic aberrations") in focused parts of the image ("transverse CA") are noticeable and so are the ones that occur in out-of-focus parts of the image ("axial CA"). On the good side, the nicely shaped aperture creates evenly smooth background blur but if you are bothered by corner shadows ("vignetting") be aware that the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM shows quite intense shadows up to about f/5.6 (with fullframe cameras).

Overall the image quality is quite astonishing for a lens that's as small as the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and that comes at such a low price tag. This also means that from now on you can always have a decent f/2.8 prime lens with you that virtually needs no space in your camera bag!

Canon set out to create their first pancake lens and they did it the right way - combining great features with an incredibly small size at an acceptable price. I am sure many people will love the lens just for its size and the way it feels but even beyond that the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM has a lot to offer.

A much more detailed review of this lens together with all test shots, sample images and technical data is available on my website LensTests_com.

See all 459 customer reviews...More...

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras..

GET Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

305 of 320 people found the following review helpful.
Best macro lens by far
By Peter J. Chon
I love Canon. Although there were times when I shot with Nikons (D700, D300) and were pretty impressed with the result, I always came back to Canon.
This is the first is macro lens for Canon and they got it right. I have used the 60mm, 100mm, & 180mm macro before and by far this is the best!
Now, if you already own a 100mm macro you should try it before upgrading because the IQ of the lens are identical. I usually use this lens for portraits (yes, I know the 85mm & 135mm is a better portrait lens.) of my daughter and the IS is awesome. Hand holding 1/40 I can still get a sharp picture.

The thing that I really hated about the non-IS 100mm macro was the distribution of weight - it was the most awkward thing to shoot with. This lens feels lighter because of the even distribution of weight and size (gradual taper) and it includes a deep hood.

I know $1K is a hefty sum of cash, but considering what you get and how long it can last you - I don't know why you would settle for the non-IS.

--- Edit ---

I found that for portrait, the bokeh on this thing is incredibly smooth. Instead of the angular blurs (lights, flowers, etc), you get a smooth circular blurs due to its spherical diaphragm. But I guess that's in the eye of the beholder...

203 of 216 people found the following review helpful.
Sharpest lens I have ever had.
By KatherineSD
I hardly ever write reviews but I felt that I really needed to write a quick note about how amazing this macro lens is. I used to be a Nikon gal until I sold my D300 for the Canon 7D. I also gave up my beloved 105mm Nikkor macro lens at that time, with much trepidation. Would I ever find a lens as sharp with as good IQ? Well, I have no more fears -- the 100mm IS macro fits that bill and more! It is simply amazing. I have the 24-70mmL and 70-200mmL lenses and this macro blows both lenses out of the water as far as IQ and sharpness. I cannot describe the beauty of the colors of my macro flowers! I posted a couple pix with this review... It is also a sharper lens than my 70-200L IS f/4, which I think is a superb lens on it's own. The bokah with this lens is also smoother than the 70-200. Again, a pleasant surprise since I also love that lens. I cannot ever imagine anyone being disappointed with this macro. Just buy it with a credit card that gives you cash back or miles because the price tag is steep.

163 of 179 people found the following review helpful.
Everything you might expect, IS behaves well
By Electronics kid
I wasn't certain this lens would be a good value or choice for an APS-C camera. Having recently purchased a 7D, I felt the focal length might be too long, but didn't want the EF-S 60mm macro, when I expect to purchase a body with a full-frame sensor in a couple years. For anyone considering a 100mm Macro, I'm 6x6" tall, and was able to squeeze in an 8x11" sheet of paper on the floor, while standing with my 20D.

I evaluated the EF 100mm Macro and this lens side-by-side. The older 100mm Macro has a great reputation. From the specifications, you'll see that the new lens is slightly longer, and weighs more. The build quality is excellent and consistent with an L lens. Optics are precise. Color and Bokeh are outstanding, as review samples attest.

Auto focus and manual focus are smooth and deliberate. As with other Macros, the focus is precise, but moves slower than a standard telephoto lens of the same focal length. It takes approximately 2.5 seconds to focus from infinity to .3m. It takes approximately 3.0 seconds to focus from .3m to infinity, as the mechanism delays .5 seconds when autofocus is initiated.

The focusing limiter selector switch functions well, eliminating the time to focus, if you know your subject will be between .3m to .5m, or .5m to infinity. The ranges offer a good compromise between focusing element travel and practical subject distances. .3m to .5m represents a 180 degree turn of the focusing ring, and .5m to infinity represents about a 150 degree turn of the focusing ring.

I purchased this lens over the older 100mm Macro for the image stabilization. The image stabilization allows the hand held use of the lens under brighter lighting conditions. The image stabilization certainly behaves differently from other L lenses at 100mm. Telephoto IS may allow you to pan, this lens does not. Better shots will be obtained with IS on while tracking a moving subject; however, IS on this lens is no substitute for a telephoto with panning IS ability. The new IS technology does seem better suited for macro shots than earlier IS techonlogy. The subject seems to "stick" on this lens, as compared with images that seem to "float" with other IS lenses.

IS compensates for movement quite well, but I will shoot low-light subjects on a tripod. With IS on and and shooting at 2.8, the depth of field is extremely shallow. Any movement toward or away from the subject will result in an out-of-focus image. My 1.6 sensor certainly exacerbates the problem. If you need to obtain a more adequate depth of field, you must shoot at 8.0 or above, which will require longer shutter times under low lighting.

Outdoors, this lens will provide unique opportunities in allowing one to complete hand-held shots of bright-lit subjects, especially if you have a full-frame sensor.

See all 289 customer reviews...More...