homecinemaman's reviews

  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

    6 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Excellent build quality, fit, finish, feel all first rate. Pro construction.
    Soft and expensive for results obtained.

    This lens and the 100-400mm "L" made me switch from Canon to Nikon.

    I was very impressed with the construction of this lens. Built from the same mold as the great classics of the 60's and 70's. However my sample was soft all over. I first noticed soft images hand held using good shooting techniques. Unhappy with the results I performed a series of outdoor tests with my Manfrotto CF tripod. Using various apatures and focal lenths I realized that the 16-35 was IMHO a unacceptable performer.

    I had the same experience with my 100-400 "L". These two lenses along with the poor autofocus in dim light of the D30 and D60 plus the miserable flash system were enough reasons to force me to sell all of my Canon gear. This was not easy.

    That said, I had the 50mm f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 'L' and got great results. I would feel that I had bad samples of these two lenses (16-35 & 100-400). However, there were to many reports in the field of problems with them. I have found the "Kit 18-70 Nikkor" to out perform this lens. I have also used the Nikkor 17-35 and there is no comparison, the Nikkor win hands down.

    Buyer beware. Test before you purchase.

    reviewed January 13th, 2006 (purchased for $1,250)