Canon EF 16-35mm F/2.8L II USM vs EF 16-35mm F/2.8L USM

[genuinesqueak]

Hi there,
I'm new to canon and am looking at getting a 16-35mm lens. I've been trying to find out the difference between the two lenses regarding quality etc. I've found a second hand series 1 (is that what they're called?) for $600 and it's in my price range. But I read reviews saying the "2" is better? Should I just save my money or is it good enough for that price?

[Brian500au]

What are you using the lens for?

I have had both versions and in a real life situation I cannot tell the different between a shot with one over the other - but then again I am not a pixel peeper.

If I was you and I wanted that focal length today then I would not hesitate to buy version one. There are many great shots taken with version one and it did not degrade over night because version two was released.

In fact version two was a stellar lens until they released the F4 version and then all of a sudden it stopped being a great lens and was delegated to just a good lens.

The latest and greatest will always be better because someone has to justify what they just spend money on.

[genuinesqueak]

Thanks! I was hoping there'd really be no "major" difference.
My main use will be competitor presentation photos, I also like a bit of astro and some portraits.

[genuinesqueak]

Is $600 a good price?

[Warbler]

$600 is better than good. When you first mentioned the price, I thought to myself that it was almost too good to be true. Hope it's a reputable source. At KEH, that price would be at the low bargain end. Is there something wrong with it?

https://www.keh.com/search/list?pmnt=Canon+EF%2C+EF-S%2C+EF-M&mfg[]=Canon&fl[]=16-35mm

[genuinesqueak]

With all my luck it will be too good to be true. It's advertised on gumtree, we've been emailing back and forth about it for a couple of weeks. Original asking price was $700. She sounds fairly legit so far, hasn't been trying to force the sale on me etc. so fingers crossed. I think I will be picking it up this weekend if all goes well.

[William W]

I have used both since 2004 and I chose to buy the MkII about 12 months after its release. There are differences, but the valuable question is whether those differences will affect you.

In a nutshell - if you regularly shoot at F/2.8; use a 135 Format Camera; and the corners are of great importance to you then the MkII will save you a lot of time and energy and probably be better value for money - less vignette; less barrel; better IQ generally; less CA.

The other major difference is that the MkII has an 82mm Filter Thread, so if you have (and use) a set of ND's or a CPL that are 77mm, then you're probably up for a bit of (or a lot of) extra expense.

If you shoot at 18~16mm often, and you abide by 'I always use a UV Filter for protection' - then you might need to rethink that for both lenses as you'll very likely get an optical vignette - I use a thin HOYA 'pro' style UV, but take it off often when not using the lens in 'dangerous places': note that the use of an appropriate Filter is necessary for confirmation of the MkII's Weather Sealing.

If you often shoot into point source light (e.g. stage productions) then the MkII has better Flare Control (even at F/4).

All the above considerations are important to me and what I do, and all can be noticed in an A/B test with no pixel peeping - but that doesn't mean you (or I) would see any difference in the same Landscape Shot at FL = 16mm and Aperture @ F/5.6; or a Portrait made at F/4, made with the two different lenses.

If you're using an APS-C Format Camera all the above is less critical, but all but the filter vignette are still for consideration if the Original 16 to 35/2.8L is to be used an APS-H Format Canon DSLR.

Both are very nice lenses, but the MkII is better, but does not necessarily present better value for money for all Photographers. One further consideration is repair and spare parts: the EF 16 t0 35F/2.8L USM was released in 2001 and MkII superseded it in 2007, which was 8 years ago, so I don't think parts availability would be thin, but the original certainly is not a recently superseded model.

WW

- - - Updated - - -

Addendum note to Moderators: this thread might better placed in the "Canon Sub-Forum" rather than "Product Reviews" > "Lenses"

WW

[ameerat42]

Agreed, WW. Shifting.

[Dug]

If the MkI purchase does not work out and you are still looking for something less expensive than the MkII L lens, then the
Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD is worth a look from all reports. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-15-30mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx