Canon EF 16-35 L MkI

[antonroland]

Hello folks

About the above lens...how "bad" is it really? I can get one for a very nice price and honestly would want the MkII BUT given my current need for glass, especially wide angle, I am considering it.

Any input appreciated

 

[walls]

was led to believe that the mkI is about the same or a smidge worse than the 17-40. The mkII is a smidge better than the 17-40...but of course you get f2.8

maybe that helps, perhaps it doesn't

 

[Lee O'D]

Wasn't aware the 16-35L mk1 was a "bad" lens. I think you will find it's a superb lens!

Have a look at: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[mr_pants]

I was always amazed at how sharp mine was. Better than any other zoom I've had wide open. I just didn't use wide angle much, so got rid of it.

 

[P-E]

I was happy with mine until I got the MKII

16-35 2.8 v 16-35 2.8 MKII

 

[Raymond Lin]

Mine cost 50% of the MKII, i can live with the edge distortion with the savings until i have enough cash to make the jump

p.s. this is on the 5D2

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I don't know much about 16-35 II on FF, but on 40D the sample I briefly tested was a complete disaster right up to 22mm even at f/8 focused near infinity. The centre was really sharp at f/2.8 but the corners were a complete smudge! The worst I've seen so far.
It was a nice newish copy used only a few times on 5D. Well I'm not buying one. 17-40 looks like a better (but not perfect) alternative.

 

[antonroland]

Thanks everyone for responding here

Quite a variety in opinions but I think the bottom line is the link to the comparison thread supplied by P-E

I recently bought a Sigma 24-70 and although it is acceptible now I had a two month fight with the local agents and it went back about five times.

It is far from perfect now but it is acceptible and the lesson to me here is rather to hold on and buy the better option.

Cheers all