Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - Canon 16-35mm L F2,8

kaycee · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:24 pm

Hi
Does some one knows the difference between the
16-35mm L F2,8 USM and the
16-35mm L F2,8 USM II.

Is it wide enough for landscapes and if so do you have
a sample image close to or at 16mm.
I have the Canon eos 5D markII

Thanks.

(still try to decide 14mm or 16-35mm)

tank_bmb · Joined: 04 Apr 2005 Posts: 1790 Location: Cincinnati, OH

It is supposed to have better optics, specifically resulting in better edge to edge image quality.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907

I use the 17-40 for landscape shots and it is plenty wide, so I would think 16 would be even better.

tobkatrina · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:40 pm

I've shot with both and actually just rented the 16-35 for the Monument Valley trip. I would get the 16-35. I also have the Mark II and it was beautiful for both photos and video.

I did notice though, just like the 14 that it tends to slightly "bow" the image (as expected) so you just need to be aware of framing extremes or handle that post production :)

kaycee · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:25 am

Thanks.

I was surprised that the II was cheaper as the normal
16-35mm L F2,8 not that much but still cheaper.
So that's why I was wondering about the quality.