top of page

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II

Introduction:
 

Though we generally use prime lenses for the reasons you can read on this site, if you need a lot of focal lengths your bag is going to get very heavy, this is where zooms come in. When you look at the area covered by different focal lengths, you can see that the big differences are at the wider ends. The difference between 16 and 21mm is significant, but modern technology enables 16-35 with f/2.8, this becomes a very universal lens.

With telephoto zooms, you're usually going to be shooting at the long end nearly all the time and even then still cropping, at the wide angle end the subject matter will generally be framed to be "as is", as a small difference makes a big change you'll be looking to frame things correctly; think also about distortion handling, the need for slightly larger margins, more later.

What the above all means is a wide angle zoom lens is a very usefull piece of kit and therefore is the obvious addition to your primes.

We've had, used, exchanged and become familiar with several wide zooms and after lots of indecision internal discussions and hours of use, this is the lens which has finally ticked all the boxes. Below is some background, some application summaries and explanation of how and why we have reached this point.

If you like lots of specifications, click this link - Canon 16-35mm  f/2.8 L II Full Specifications.

16 35 2.8.png
0I1A2728.jpg

How wide and how narrow?
 

If ever there was a seemingly simple question, this would seem to be it, however "what is this lens used for"? There are so many different applications and each will have different demands.

Here is an overlay showing 16, 17, 21, 24, 28 & 35mm FOV's on one image. With 28mm Chris is only partially in the shot, even 21mm gives a restricted composition, so 16 / 17mm is often necessary.

There are far more attributes which influence the use of a wide angle lens. With many subjects suited to this focal length range, there is however a shorter list of attributes the lens needs to have to meet these goals.

First, plans of what you'll use it for may be very precise when thinking about it, but inevitibly a wide angle zoom will be a goto lens for many many unforseen opportunities, so it needs as much flexibility as possible.

As a brainstorm, focal range, focus breathing, edge sharpness, distorsion, flare, autofocus speed, weight, filter size, constant maximum aperture & colour fringing come immediately to mind; then add sensor resolution for overall quality.

16mm is very wide, do you need this wide? I beleive yes, sometimes you just need to get it all in, beyond this is fisheye - (this is specialised so not included here). The trade off's are then in the longer end, 24 / 28 / 35, matched to aperture.

20230607-IMG_0638.jpg

Where it delivers:

 

This full image is at 17mm the crop box is 35mm. From the perspective of composition this is a compltely different result, having the flexibility to capture both ends at full resolution is a highly desirable feature, cropping this severely in post can have severe quality implications. An alternative is to carry more lenses of course, there are advantages and dissadvantages to this that I don't need to list here.

Broaden this the same way, when you're looking at a subject, be it a landscape, indoor or street scene, having too limited a fov is a blocker, usually no good way around it, hence the 16mm end is in our eyes the most important.

Carbost - Pub Evening

The image here with the boats accross the loch, is at 35mm, you really would not want to be cropping this from a large image if you can help it as the details in the reflections, sky and green hills would noticeably take a hit. There were other features at the time within range which could look good in a wider composition, however the simplicity and clarity here was an easy winner, the lack of foreground is deliberate giving perfect symetry with the boats as the focus. It was possible with a 16-35 to stand there looking through the viewfinder for a real preview, this is more clumsy and indirect if your changing lenses, walking backwards and forwards of course not possible.

Here time was on side, there was no rush, but another time if the wind is more variable, the surface of the water will change for the worst, then having a single zoom to move fast is very beneficial.

Lens Optical Quality:

 

This is the most important area for serious photography and the designers have a myriad of parameters and variables to overcome before ending up with an optimum, quality vs value solution.

This lens has four low dispersion and two aspherical elements to achieve what it does, this does not come cheap. The result is however in our eyes a masterpiece, there are no quality limitations which we have had to deal with beyond a little flare, but this wide it's always going to be there, it doesn't mean you can't see things but no blockers.

Vignette is visible at f/2.8 through to f/4 but especially with a wide angle lens it doesn't matter and can be easily corrected in post.

Sharpness is the single most important attribute and this lens is sharp, throughout the entire zoom range and corner to corner. It is plenty good enough for display or oversize prints. There is little scope for depth of field control wide open but at 35mm  f/2.8 can help seperate the background and you really can influence the final result.

Flare is very well managed for such a lens but is still evident at the wider end so take care to use the lens hood as much as possible, but even then you just have to keep a lookout. In the image here looking directly into the bright sun there is a little ghosting, I've left it in the image but it could be easily improved in post, this isn't as much flare as the humidity on the day.

The last significant point is contrast and colour resolution. This is another area where this lens shines. Contrast is crisp, precise and without any fall off in crispness. Colour saturation is also very good and very well balanced; accuracy is there, (note the camera body has a big influence also and with Canon sensors this is very well matched.

20230801-0I1A3114.jpg

Distortion visible but not unpleasant, contrast throughout the frame is very good

Humidity, but very little flare

IMG_4580_edited.jpg
IMG_4578_edited.jpg

Handling, Carrying:

 

There is a lot of glass packed into a very solid body, though heavy it is compact. It is not a weight which will have you thinking about it all day but compared to the 17-40mm f/4 it's worth knowing.

The lens barrel itself is a very comfortable size with well dimensioned and damp control rings giving a precise feel. Large and small hands will have no problem with reaching and using.

When focussing the front of the lens extends a little but does not rotate. 82mm filters are one size up from ideal but as they don't rotate CPL's can be used, note 35mm is fine for a CPL but at 16mm any lens will struggle, simple physics. However the results are not unpleasant and I use it more than I thought I'd be able to, (see Caernarvon Castle above).

The autofocus of this lens is rapid, quiet and precise. For landscapes and street scene for example it is much faster than your eye can follow.

The zoom range means this lens does fit into the "general purpose lens" category, so inevitably you'll be carrying it mounted a lot of the time.  If you're used to primes this will feel big, if you're used to longer zooms or 85mm f/1.2's you'll find this light. You'll want a top quality filter and the hood fitted to protect the front objective, even with the lens hood on it's not far inside.

The lens hood itself as a necessity is a big 120mm diameter and it extends 130mm from the body, you'll quickly get used to it but it's big. When it comes to packing all away in a bag that lens hood diameter is still something to think about.

Decision Options:

 

Once you have decided you need a wide angle zoom, the decision doesn't get easier. To illustrate the options available and the types of decisions you need to address, this summary explains our criteria and choices. All here are good, and different at the same time.

a) Canon EF17-40mm f/4L:

     Pros:

     • Wide zoom range.

     • Very good image quality.

     • Autofocus fast & quiet.

     • Lightweight.

     • Low relative price.

     Cons:

     • f/4 (though constant).

     • Sharp but not as sharp as below:

b) Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art:

     Pros:

     • Very wide 14mm

     • Weather-sealed.

     • Compact quality.

     • Sharpest image quality.

     Cons:

     • Limited to 24mm

     • Expensive

     • Exposed front element

c) Canon EF16-35 f/2.8L II:

     Pros:

     • Focal length flexibility.

     • Excellent image quality.

     • Very useful zoom range.

     Cons:

     • Only f/2.8.

     • Heavier and bulkier.

     • High cost

Final Decision

If you're looking for a lens in this category, a summary of points written here will help with your decision. These are specific lenses for general applications but with twists, they to our eyes are not direct rivals as are not quite like for like.

Focal Length & Aperture:

The first point to raise and they are all different, all cover 17 to 24mm, but ranging from 14 to 40mm. Each in their own way are very strong and highly recommendable but they are not direct competitors for differing reasons. f/2.8 has clear advantages but so does the weight and size saving of the f/4, most of the time we're above f/4 for this type of lens.

The extra wide FOV or 14mm can be very useful the Canon's don't do it.

Image quality:

We have used the two Canon L series lenses here extensively and of the two, the f/2.8 has the edge, but most of the time you'll struggle to see any difference, let's consider them equal. The Sigma we haven't used but all tests suggest it is potentially the sharpest one here, reviews show very low distortion and the highest sharpness, which is why we have included it here. There have been astigmatism quality concerns but Sigma will correct them.

Design and Build Quality:

These are all top quality, but even though the 17-40 f/4 is an 'L' lens, it lags behind the other two in having plastic body parts throughout, but it is substantially lighter and has a 77mm filter thread which is less expensive and more standard than the 82mm of the 16-35. The 16-35 and Sigma have no real issues here.

All three are weather sealed.

Handling:

All three have big control rings the right way around and feel very good.

The 17-40L is light clean, very portable without flaws

The 16-35 doesn't have any flaws to mention here, everything works as it should it's large but fully manageable.

The Sigma is in third place here as the 14mm means the lens protrudes out the front so you cannot fit filters and the lens hood must always be in place, there are obvious extra handling considerations and care actions to take.

Conclusion:

This is difficult without a clear winner or clear loser, just advantages and disadvantages:

17-40 f/4L - lightweight, compact, very sharp, very good zoom range - we have one.

16-35 f/2.8L - Overall just ahead here with 2.8 throughout - we have one.

14-24 f/2.8 DG - Excellent option when you need a little wider - not the reach though.

Note: the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II has a newer L III version, by all accounts better however we cannot justify the update as no shortfalls at 50Mp exist with the mk II.

Please use this link when considering purchasing this or similar equipment.
We may earn a small commission which is free for you. 
Thank you, we hope this has helped.

Footnote:

This will be expanded upon from time to time, there is a lot more practical information we'd like to share and guides for more general use.

If you have any questions or would like some open clear specific feedback,  just ask us here Contact Us.

bottom of page