Same excellent build quality as all "L" lens''s Light and easy to use super fast focusing speed

Watch for flare when using filters. As with any wide zoom, works best above f/4

Please see my review on the canon 16-35mm. I decided to do a short review on the 17-35mm for those considering buying the new 16-35 canon L zoom. After reviewing over 350 chromes using the new 16-35mm, I am convinced that the new canon 16-35mm is only marginally better than the 17-35 it seemed to be relacing. If you already own a canon 17-35mm don''t bother selling it to buy the new 16-35mm. Nobody will be able to see the difference in the final print unless you point it out to them, and even then they will only agree with you because they don''t want to hurt your feelings for spending $1500.00 for a lens thats only worth a $100.00 more than your 17-35mm. Its just not worth the extra cost. But, if you don''t allready own a zoom in this range go ahead and buy the 16-35mm, it will give you a tiny bit more flexability when using a digital camera. But you will get more bang for your dollar jsut buying the canon 17-35mm. You also might be able to find a great price on a used 17-35mm from someone who purchased the new 16-35mm. Spend the extra dollars on travel and have fun taking pictures.

Customer Service

After 20 years of using canon products, I have never needed to use their service for anything other than normal cleaning.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 16-35L (I use only on my D60) Canon 20-35L (perfect optics for quality work) Canon 24L ts-e (the only lens to use for buildings and landscapes)

The wide range of focal distances it gives you,well built,the gel-filter holder in the back.

Sharpness

Is it a good lens? Yes. Is it excelent? No. I´ve got the 50 1.4 and the 70-200 2.8,and results are not even closer. The diference in sharpness is visible. That does not meke it a bad lens,I use it a lot,but in no way it can be compared to the other two,specially wide open.

Customer Service

Never used

Similar Products Used:

Canon 50 1.4 Canon 70-200 2.8L

SHARP like a razor... FAST like a race car

A little big... But the new 16-35 is larger..

This is a great lens, it''s very sharp and death fast.. Use this lens nearly all the time.. For portraits, nature and so on... I have the 28-70L and 70-200L, so they make a great combo... I''ve seen a lot of bad reviews, but i can''t agree with them. If the lens is purchased 2nd hand, it could be at former pro used lens.. So it''s been used alot... That could be... Or else Canon just had a bad stock of them.. I can''t wait to get the new 16-35L..

Similar Products Used:

None

Light weight, - versatitily, largest aparture, AF-speed

Sharpness, price, mechanical quality, some very bad examples out in the market, - return them! The plastics show cracks, - something that has not ever happened to any of the other of my lenses

Due to weight and field of view, I use it a lot, but are not always crystal sharp. Here roumors (from envious Nikon-users?) that many pro's here in Norway have had to return examples of these lenses because they have not been sharp enough. As mantioned by somebody above; it's too expencive for it's performance. And Canon could be destroying it's image as a 'quality producer' having a lot of lenses out there that are certainly not to standard. To the Canon managment; make a new and better one!

Customer Service

Expensive! (Norway/Sweden)

Similar Products Used:

28-70/2,8, 200/2,8, 300/2,8

Excellent build quality, fast, light weight

Not critically sharp

An excellent lens for a photojournalist. However, I've tested 3 examples of this lens, and none of them were sharp enough for critical landscape use. I know this lens is supposed to be sharp, and I wouldn't discourage anyone from buying one, but test it before you buy!

Customer Service

Not required

Similar Products Used:

Canon EF 20-35 f2.8, Canon EF 20-35 f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 20mm f2.8 USM

Razor sharp and beautifully made

Front aspheric element moves back to create gap when zooming, requiring a protective filter

Indispensable

Similar Products Used:

EF 20-35 f/3.5-3.5 which was great only as a 25-85 f/8+ optic by comparison.

Light, USM, great zoom range

Optics, build

The lens is too expensive for the optical quality, not a step forward from the 20-35 2.8L. Not quite tack sharp in the DOF zone. USM not that useful for wideangle, and the lens feels plasticky and a bit flimsy.

Similar Products Used:

Canon EF 20-35 2.8L, Nikon 20-35 2.8

Fantastic sharpness,light weight,operates smoothly and a great focal length range

Wish it would focus closer

Get it !!!!! Even th price has come down so there is no excuse for not owning it

Customer Service

Canon Service is 2nd to none!!

Similar Products Used:

nikon 20-35/2.8 and Tokina 20-35/28

Quiet/fast focusing, sharp, handy (as opposed to the rest of the "L" zooms)

No

Fast and quiet focusing thanks to Canon's USM. Crisp and sharp images and well worth the price tag.

Customer Service

None required

Similar Products Used:

Tokina 17mm f/3.5 ATX

Not too big for the zoom range and it's a great travel lens for shooting fast changing action. The "plastic" construction didn't bother me -- it's the glass I care about anyway.

I was very disappointed in the edge sharpness -- or lack of it.

I really wanted to be impressed by this mens. But at the 17mm to 24mm range it's just not sharp enough in the corners. In fact the sharpness falls off very fast making it even more noticeable. I'm going to test another example of the lens to see if mine is unique. Unless you're doing editorial stuff that isn't going to be enlarged much, I'd recommend two prime lenses to cover the range.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

First zoom in the wide angle range