🪆 Canon Ef 16 35 2.8 L Usm Ii Review

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM (Black) at Walmart for $638. As it’s a full-frame lens, the 108-degree viewing angle of the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS is comparable to using a zoom lens starting at 10mm on an APS-C camera. However, an upside to the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM is that its tele end stretches further than many of these competing lenses B&H Deal Zone: Manfrotto Pro Light Reloader Air-55 Carry-On Camera Roller Bag – Only $249.88 (Save $250.00), Impact PowerSync Kit. More Canon & Sony News. Free Newsletter . Bryan Recommends. View the MTF average test results measured by the ultra-high precision Trioptics Imagemaster MTF bench. Compare the MTF results various lenses. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM feels very solid in your hand, even if it is mostly made out of plastic, and it features enhanced resistance to shock and vibration and weather-proofing too. The focusing ring is generously wide, and has a ridged, rubberised grip band. The side of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM lens, set to 16mm. 3 days ago · While the Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM is discontinued, it can be bought secondhand for around $590/£415 depending upon condition. If you’re in the market for a new lens, however, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM ($1,299/£1,389) or EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM ($1,999/£2,199) could fit the bill. At 640g and 790g respectively, they are heavier The Nikon 17-35/2.8 is terribly long in the tooth. It was great for film and drew rave reviews when it first came out, but it is no longer good for the current high resolution cameras. I believe it was slightly better than the Canon mark I version, but the mark II and mark III are better. 16-35 is a great range for PJ work and there was, and Weight: 1.41 pounds The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is a high performance, water-resistant, and ultra wide-angle Canon L-series lens. It has been specifically designed for improved edge-to-edge image quality that will meet the strict requirements of professional and high-end amateur photographers. It features 3 high-precision aspherical lens Between a 24 f1.4 L and a 16-35 f4 L, I'd easily go with the 16-35. 1.4 isn't useful for lanscapes anyway, but IS definitely is. Or even a 24-70 f4 L. I find that an ultrawide like a 16-35 can actually be quite challenging for lanscapes, in the sense that it requires some practice in composing photos for it. This Canon lens is an ultra-wide-angle optic with a fixed f/2.8 maximum aperture. Having a large maximum aperture is useful for astrophotography because it enables you to get much better images in low light. That’s because the lens allows more light to pass through to the sensor. Re: Canon 16-35 2.8 vs Sigma 18-35 1.8. In reply to Huder • Aug 8, 2013. To me the choice is a no brainer for the 18-35. Cheaper, sharper and faster at a cost of 2mm on the wide end. It's not like either lens would eliminate the need for an actual UWA lens at least for most people. jitteringjr's gear list: Introduction. Launched back in spring 2007 the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L II is the latest ultra-wide zoom lens made by Canon. Regarding its rather steep pricing of around 1400€/US$ it's primarily targeting the professional market segment. Compared to its predecessor Canon claims to have "improved the peripheral image quality at the wide-angle end". It's quite strange that this lens costs around £1200, when Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8L USM can be picked up for around £50 less at around £1150. Although the f/2.8 lens lacks image stabilisation, it Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM on Sony A7R II vs Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM on Canon EOS 5DS R COMPARISON SELECTION (3 selected items max.) VIEW COMPARISON ADD MORE .

canon ef 16 35 2.8 l usm ii review