Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Reviews

I initially bought this lens for my film camera and went thru extensive comparison with 17-40 before making up my mind.
On a film camera, this lens rocks, wide open, the center is very sharp at all focal lengths, the edges are good between 16 and 24 mm but above 24 mm, edges are only fair, stopping down to f/4 is enough to get good edge performance. Distortion is on the high side at 16 mm, fine above 20 mm.
On 1.6x DSLR, the center is exceptionally sharp, between 20 and 24 mm, at f/5.6, center sharpness beats all my other L lenses and even my 50 mm!!! Edge performance is very good, except wide open where it's just good. Top sharpness is reached around f/5.6 between 20 and 24 mm, where it beats all my fixed focal lenses! This lens on a 20D performs incredibly well, but the range is a bit limited and a few extra mm above 35 mm would have been welcome.
On full frame cameras, like 5D, this lens MUST be stopped down to f/5.6 to have sharp edges. Distortion is fairly high at the wide end and can be a real problem, but thing get much better as of 20 mm. Vignetting is sensible at 16 mm
Last ut not least, this lens has a tendency to flare even with the hood, be careful when the sun is in the fov, sometimes, just using my hand near the hood is enough to prevent flare.
The construction is simply awesome, a real pro lens with weather sealing, full-time manual, fast USM, just superb!
The lens hood is big and takes quite a bit of space in the bag...
My comparison with the 17-40 drove me to choose the 16-35 for the following reason:
- Viewfinder twice as bright
- AF locks much better in low-light since its getting twice as much light
- Center sharpness is higher than 17-40
- This lens reaches top sharpness at f/5.6 while 17-40 needs to be stopped down to f/8
- Extra mm on wide end is helpful
- DoF possibilities are way better on 16-35, in particular on 1.6x DSLR where getting a nice background blur would be very difficult with the 17-40
Now, if you're only shooting landscape and don't need f/2.8, don't waste your money and get the 17-40 which has a better range and is less sensitive to flare.

The 16-35 is the best wide angle zoom in the Canon range, the 17-40 is just as good, but with one major difference... no f/2.8, the 16-35 is therefore a better choice, more versatile and will get you a shot where the 17-40 won't cut it !
My father always told me "buy the best tools you can afford and you'll save money"
I initially bought a 17-40 and ended up selling it, I shoot a lot indoor and the aperture was a serious limitation to me, I now have a 16-35 and it's the perfect lens for me. I intend to keep it a lifetime, it's built like a tank!

test

This is my first Canon ultra-wide zoom, but im an owner of a Nikkor 17-35 af-s for a quite of time, which i consider a true optical masterpiece. Comparing them, i find the Canon zoom almost equal in matters of color saturation and sharpness, though it is more prone to flare. But anyway, its great! My-like!

I'm a film shooter. I'd owned a Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 previously. Got rid of it just because of the very poor corner performance at 17mm end regardless of the aperture. The corners with Canon's 16-35mm are even ok_ish at 16mm f2.8 and good at 16mm f5.6, but at 17mm the corners are real good and superior to Tamron's 17-35mm (even not comparable). Towards the center Tamron does much better than what it does on the corners however Canon 16-35mm f2.8 is still sharper at the center no doubt. On the other hand Canon 16-35mm flares badly... very badly. You got to be very careful with this lens when shooting against the low winter sun. I would love to compare this with the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 though.