Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II VS Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L

8. January 2009 edit

  • I was wondering what is the improvement?? So far from the research I have done there is a price difference and lens rentals has it that they are closing the original out of stock. I am looking into this lens for weddings and portrait use. I will only be renting this one but hope to add a few L's to my rig. Oh and neither of them have IS should I rent something with IS instead? I am learning a lot just trying to get a feel for what will best fit my needs. I rented the 24-105 F4L IS for my last wedding and got awesome results. Just wanted to know if faster is really better?? Oh and I almost forgot to mention I do have a mono pod that the camera is mounted to most of the time also. Thank you, Mary


  • Not one Canon 16-35 f/2.8L I have ever sold has ever come back with some one disappointed. I have never shot with the newer version but this is from Canon's website:

    Inheriting the same outstanding wide-angle 16 mm focal length, the new Canon zoom lens favorably corrects for various aberrations to achieve improved peripheral image quality at the wide-angle end.

    On a full frame, it's a street shooter zoom not really geared towards portraits. On a crop sensor, its a bit of a odd focal range... IMO.


  • Oh and neither of them have IS should I rent something with IS instead?
    IS isn't needed as much with short focal lengths as it is for telephoto.

    What camera(s) are you shooting with?
    The 16-35mm L is a great lens but there are no EF L lenses with IS in that range. If you are using a crop body, the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, is considered on of the best lenses in the range.
    There is also the new 18-55mm IS, but that is an entry level lens, not really comparable with the 16-35mm or the 17-55mm.


  • the new one uses 82mm filters and has better clarity in the corners, that's really about it.


  • Oh that sucks... many of the L lenses including primes and zooms (excluding super telephotos) share the 77mm filter size. This made it very easy to carry a single set of filters that fits most of your L lenses. If the newer one is ~larger~ that's even worse.... you can't adapt your existing 77mm filters to larger.

    Example:
    Old 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70f.8L and 70-200 f2.8L share the 77
    The 17-40 f4L, 24-105L, 100-400L share the 77

    Agree, the new filter size is a bummer.

    I have the original 16-35, and you do NOT need IS with that lens.

    However, at 16mm you need to be careful. Get a face to close or near the edge and it starts getting wiiiiiiiiider. Everything looks weird... like watching 4:3 TV stretched onto a 16:9 TV set... very odd.


  • the new one uses 82mm filters

    Oh that sucks... many of the L lenses including primes and zooms (excluding super telephotos) share the 77mm filter size. This made it very easy to carry a single set of filters that fits most of your L lenses. If the newer one is ~larger~ that's even worse.... you can't adapt your existing 77mm filters to larger.

    Example:
    Old 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70f.8L and 70-200 f2.8L share the 77
    The 17-40 f4L, 24-105L, 100-400L share the 77







    • #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#
    Your name:
    E-mail:
    Telphone:

    Your comments:


    If you have any other info about Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II VS Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L , Please add it free.

    ImageJuice Raising Funding to Turn Web Sites Into Moving Pictures
    Plan to Counterattack Hackers Draws More Fire