Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Final Review Part 2

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Final Review Part 2 | Photographer Dustin Abbott shares his final review of the new Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM lens. The 16-35L III is one of Canon's most important lenses; is this newest version worth your hard earned cash? This episode focuses on image quality. Read my final review:bit.ly/2fy1COY | Image Gallery: bit.ly/2dKJQYC | Buy It at B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2dEKJVi
Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at:
B&H Photo: bhpho.to/1TA0Xge
Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Ebay: bit.ly/DustineBay
Make a donation via Paypal: paypal.me/dustinTWI
Get a discount off all Skylum Editing Software (Luminar, Aurora HDR, AirMagic) by using code DUSTINHDR at checkout: bit.ly/LuminarDLA
Become a Patron: / dustinabbott | Check me out on: Personal Website: dustinabbott.net/ | Sign up for my Newsletter: bit.ly/1RHvUNp | Instagram: bit.ly/DLAinsta | Google+: bit.ly/24PjMzv | Facebook: on. 1nuUUeH | Twitter: bit.ly/1RyYxIH | Flickr: bit.ly/1UcnC0B | 500px: bit.ly/1Sy2Ngu
My filming setup: Sony a7R III: B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2D6ibNO or Amazon: amzn.to/2CNxOvH | or | Sony a9 @ B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2HyWIyt or Amazon: amzn.to/2s1vYE0
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2FA00la or Amazon amzn.to/2G2kaEr
Lights: Rotolight AEOS @B&H Photo bhpho.to/2IK7mqV | Genaray Contender @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/33HbGNM | and Aputure AL-MW: bhpho.to/2N3MtZV
DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

[@adrian_div_photography]

In my opinion the best camera/lens reviewer out there, by far. Easy to listen to, very detailed and most importantly, unbiased in your final verdicts. Great stuff. Thanks Dustin!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thank you very much!

[@TechWiz1983]

Great video; love your discerning POV, you nailed it. Thank-you for taking the time to keep us well informed, much appreciated.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I do my best, Daniel. Thanks for the feedback.

[@bikesandcameras]

Dustin I really appreciate the depth you go into in your reviews. I've come to really trust your measured opinions. Thanks for taking the time to produce these.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thank you. I like the use of the term "measured". I think that is fitting to what I try to do.

[@bikesandcameras]

Absolutely! Your opinions are always backed up with evidence of why you've come to them which is why I always head to your feed before making a lens purchase.

[@aldasmite3230]

do you even check the focus points, bro? first image - tamron focus point much closer to camera than canons. no use of analyzing sharpness if focus point is waaaay different

[@jamiermathlin]

great review, keep up the excellent work !

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thanks for the nice feedback, Jamie.

[@floex831]

Love the review, Dustin! Looks like I'll be sticking to the Tamron 15-30

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I like mine a lot, too. It may not be as competent as the 16-35L III in some areas, but I do like the slightly wider FL and the VC.

[@K9malinois_dog_love]

Thank you Dustin.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Very welcome

[@mahamza86]

Extremely detailed review. Very well explained. Great review. Subscribed.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thanks all around!

[@peteranderson6932]

I have used the Tamron 15-30 VC extensively over the last several months. It is an incredible lens in so many ways except the too often sun flaring which can make it look like a series of vibrant colored saucers near the end of beam of sunlight. Not the majority of the time but it creeps in. I am getting better at knowing what can cause it so, like most things, I am getting better results. Tamron's good customer support, 6-year warranties, and better autofocus system has helped me to steer clear of Sigma. The lens you review here seems very good in the center but the border clarity, heavy vignette, lack of image stabilization (yes I use it more than I thought), and high price point make this Canon lens a non-starter for me. I really like my 100-400mm L IS Mark II. It seems like Canon thought more deeply in making that lens and the results show. Canon can stumble from time to time on lenses. To me this lens is more of stumble relatively to the time that has passed to get it more right.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I personally don't consider the lens a stumble, but I do feel the price point is too high for the lens.

[@peteranderson6932]

As you stated in your written review. A heavy vignette can be excused in a portrait lens. Indeed, it can be a benefit in that context. However, for a landscape or architecture lens it is paramount to have as little as possible. Edge to edge clarity with absolute minimum vignette are essential for those purposes. Also, correctly the vignette, as you state, causes some destruction of the image. You do not need to pixel peep to see these flaws. Professional photographer's clients can see these things but so can the flaring that can show up sometimes on the Tamron. The difference is that the vignette at wide aperatures are always there on the Canon whereas on the Tamron flaring you can work to avoid that. To me, IMHO, this lens is a relative stumble because of the obvious and important things others have corrected and Canon did not.

[@peteranderson6932]

Typo "Also, correcting the vignette........." On thing Canon over the years has always meant: Dedication to the customer and their customer support is second to none in the Photography world with fast and comprehensive responses from customer support from within the USA. Something companies like Sony should have learned from years ago. So I have saddened this was not a "knock it out of the park success" like many of the other Canon lenses have been and continue to be.

[@peteranderson6932]

PS: Photozone.de, also, was less forgiving of this lens's short comings as well especially compared to the expectations: www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d

[@peteranderson6932]

Sorry: Copied wron g link. Correct link here www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/992-canon1635f28mk3

[@TomasRamoska]

I happy with my 16-35mm f4 IS

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's an excellent lens, so I don't blame you.

[@dansaghin1]

How is it for indoor stills and video? I need it mainly for indoor events and will use flashes...

[@melodychest9020]

Not surprised as at f2.8 the canon's got issues compared to the Tamron as seen in this video!

[@Voyageur117]

Thank you very much! A great review!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

My pleasure. Glad to help out.

[@dmay1100]

Sadly the price will hold me back, I just can't see the Mkii bringing enough money to make it easy to get the new one. Maybe the F4l will be the way to go, or continue removing the remaining zooms and continuing to a prime only plan. Decisions decisions ☺️

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

In some ways the decisions become more hard when there are a number of GOOD options to choose from.

[@dmay1100]

So very true, almost makes me lament for earlier times :)

[@Master200981able]

Nice review. I'm looking for a new wide-angle lens. I'm undecided between the EF 16-35mm f/4 and the new EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III. The overall sharpness - and especially sharpness in the corners - are most important to me. I'm deep into architecture and astro photography. So, what's your opinion, which one shall I choose? Many thanks in advance.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Astro is the one area I wasn't really impressed with the f/4L. If that's a priority, I think f/2.8L III is your better option.

[@Twobarpsi]

I'm considering buying the 16-35mm 2.8. Great review!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

My pleasure

[@stephenf.dennstedt5553]

I just recently discovered your product reviews on KZbin and they are EXCELLENT. I will be returning to the States in a short while (after an absence of 5-years) and will be upgrading my camera kit from my dated Canon 5D Mark II to the new 5D Mark IV. I will also be replacing some of my older L-glass for newer versions possibly including the 16-35mm f/2.8L III IS USM, 24-70mm f/4L II IS USM, 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM and the newer 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II IS USM (to replace my 400mm f/5.6L prime). I'm also considering the EOS 7D Mark II as my primary wildlife shooter and backup to the 5D Mark IV. As you can see your reviews are therefore VERY timely for me and provide lots of good information and insight (non-biased pros and cons). Thanks for your excellent work producing these videos. Steve Dennstedt at Indochine Photography @ www.IndochinePhotography.me.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thanks for the nice feedback...and I'm glad to help out!

[@jonathonphilip9757]

An outstanding review Dustin. Really detailed and told me everything i needed to know

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's great to hear. My goal, obviously.

[@melvinjohnson7033]

Lately Canons decision making seems suspect from dumbed down cameras to lens. Based on your reviews it seems the Canon 16-35 F4 IS is the exception to the rule here. Good features, quality and price in this wide angle category.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's probably Canon's strongest zoom in the last couple of years.

[@thisis5123]

I discovered your channel in the very beginning when I was still stumbling around KZbin for genuine character that translated into good reviews. Thanks for this. I'm looking to upgrade my version II of this lens. I'm looking for something that offers "good micro contrast for a zoom" as Canon doesn't offer many good primes below 24mm. I'd go with all Zeiss primes, but i use this range for people often in events and want AF. I'm hoping this lens will do the trick to satisfy the off center lens image quality. My version II is awful in not only sharpness, but just contrast overall when off center. everything looks flat and milky regardless of aperture. On my 1DXII I feel comfortable closing down further than I do on my 5DIV, and still no dice on clearing up the IQ off center with the version II. Unfortunately, I never subscribed to channels early on in my photography days when I first discovered you. What got me to come back an subscribe was actually Ken Wheeler's videos talking about other youtube channels, when my memory was stimulated and I came back to subscribe 4 months ago or so. Thank you Dustin.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Welcome back. I think this might be the lens you are looking for.

[@TheProjectFunHouse]

Great review! The images look really good from the Canon, but they don't look $1000 better than the Tamron. For me it'll be either the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC or the Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS. They both produce a good enough image in my opinion.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

All three of these lenses are very good options. We've never had a time where so many good options were available to us!

[@wjfmarketing]

Great review again Dustin. Man, this is a nice lens, ...but I'm still not sure it's worth the extra over the Tamron. Being able to add filters to the Canon is a nice plus, but how much will that just increase that vignette? Finally, image stabilization is so important for me lately.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think your feelings will reflect those of many potential buyers, though there are a lot of people that simply aren't interested in a third party option.

[@wjfmarketing]

I use to be one of them, but the Tamron 35/45mm's have really won me over! I'm 80% photography and 20% video now, and that stabilization is SO helpful for both. Thanks again for all of your fine reviews.

[@thepanel2935]

After owning the original Canon 24-70mm f2.8 and Canon 16-35mm f2.8 II, I'm always wary of Canon wide zooms. I now own the updated 24-70mm f2.8 II and 16-35mm f2.8 III and they are far superior to the older versions, neither of which was a true _professional_ lens or L-Series lens in my opinion. And the 24-70 was always going in for repairs. Always. A colleague at Getty Images said the same thing about his 24-70 - he said he'd spent over $10k on repairs on that lens. The rods inside the lens barrel (which the lens zooms in and out on) _always_ require fixing.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That’s pretty crazy. I’m glad to heard that the newer zooms are treating you better.

[@thepanel2935]

Yes, the newer versions of those lenses are much, much better. The 24-70 lens gets used a lot on red carpets - I shot those types of images for many years, but not so much anymore due to the falling price of image sales or "subscription based sales" that are good for buyers but not for photographers. The 24-70 is the real workhorse and gets used a _lot,_ so it does need servicing more frequently. And I guess a zoom is always likely to need more servicing due to its many moving parts compared to a fixed lens.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I’ve been blessed that the kind of work I do is less affected by that. I do Getty, but it’s not a major source for me.

[@AANasseh]

Thanks Dustin. I wish you had the 16-35 f/2.8L II to compare to the 16-35 f/2.8 III. I wonder what did Canon in IQ improvements to make this a Mark III vs. the previous Mark II.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

If you watch this comparison series, it will show you have much better the 16-35 f/4L IS is, and the MK III is just a little bit better: kzbin.info/aero/PLwWFV2kake9EchCnhDJddxN8cPDV5Mq1m

[@jameslarsen9814]

Great review, as usual! I am surprised at how much of a vignette there is on the Canon - in that water shot with the trees, the light falloff is a ton, which is unfortunate for Canon.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I agree. I'm surprised, frankly.

[@jameslarsen9814]

I know most landscape shooters will want to shoot at f5.6/f8 to get everything in sharp focus, but many still do like to use f2.8 for certain shots, and that heavy vignette I'm sure will make people consider other options.

[@cstone710]

Why is that?! vignette is an easy fix in lightroom

[@vosaaudits]

I notice that this review is based on the ƒ2.8 aperture setting : the Canon lens comes into it;s best ( optimal ) ƒ 8 - 16 and hence would be far more sharp. The Tamron here may perform better at wide open apertures. It's a shame you didn't do comparison results at: 5.6, 8. 16. I personally use the series 3 lens here and have done lens tests myself and on my copy ƒ 8 - 16 is far the sharpest aperture . I understand this videos take time to make and I thank you for making it. I justw ant to point out something that may have helped the Canon vs Tamron optic designs and glass

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

+Luxish Aj I did do comparisons at narrower apertures, although I rarely shoot them at apertures smaller than f/8 because then you start to have issues with diffraction. If a lens can't produce excellent results by f/8, then it probably isn't work buying.

[@arpitagrawal214]

Bought the lens today after watching the review . The 16-35 f4 is at f4 is shame sharp at 2.8 i think the corner to corner 2.8 sharpness at 16mm this lens is amazing Pleasently surprised and happy Thanks you for your excellent detailed review Justin as always

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Glad you are happy. Enjoy!

[@aldrindetablan4358]

wow! what sharpness for both lenses and your video quality sir is superb! that tamron 85mm and the 5D4 is a sweet pairing!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It really is. I love the lens on 5D Mark IV for pretty much everything.

[@moedergroe4239]

Great review, as usual! I'll go with the f4, it's less than HALF the price, has IS and vignetting is better.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You won't be the only one. The vignette on the f/4 is better, but not a lot. That price difference is huge, though.

[@dansaghin1]

What a joy to watch, those skin tones... The 5D4... Great review, I will go for the is f4 variant though...

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's a great lens.

[@paulvandenboom9123]

Excellent review, tanks a lot Dustin!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You're welcome.

[@artofwomenphotography]

did you do any testing between the mark 3 and the mark 2.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

No. I did do a lot of comparisons to the f/4L IS and Tamron 15-30 in my three way shootout series last year, though.

[@rrrrrrtt1]

Very nice review!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thank you!

[@alivenesscyclingroadcyclin2673]

Thank you Dustin - superb review as always! The price of this lens is way over the top and I highly commend you for making this the main point of your conclusion! I had the v II of this lens and sold it last year to go for the new f4 IS. Looks like that was the right move. For a low light wide angle, I'll happily wait for Tamron to hopefully release a super wide prime as part of their new SP line. Any chance you see that happening, Dustin? Thanks and greeting from Spain, Dirk

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I've hoped for that to happen, but I've heard no word. I'd love to see a 20mm f/2 VC about the size of the 45 VC.

[@ГеоргийКаражов]

Very good review.Thank you Dustin.God's bless you-Dustin.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You’re welcome

[@reinaldodiaz]

Great review you really cover every single aspect! I was wondering whats your opinion on the 11-24mm canon lens. I've had a really hard time deciding between this lens and the 11-24. your opinion would be really appreciated!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm afraid I never reviewed the 11-24mm. It personally didn't appeal to me as I feel 11mm is wider than what I practically need.

[@howardkahn717]

GGGGreat review! Never have i listen to and enjoyed such complete reviews as yours are........ But i like the tamron better......i have the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 constant aperture.....i paid 469.00 not 649.00, now you can buy it for 399.00.......The difference in price makes my eyes see that the Sigma is the better lens....i use Sony full frame and aps-c "A" mounted cameras...........smile

[@OrlandoMac]

Great job Dustin

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thank you, Orlando

[@Strikeshotz]

Thanks a lot for the review it help me with my purchase

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Glad to hear it. Enjoy the lens!

[@mrbobo86]

Great comparison! Love my tamron15-30

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's holding up very well as compared with newer releases.

[@jamesmcneil4063]

I bought the Canon R which require the RF mount and I am seeing how well the Tamron behaves. This puts me in a pickle.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

And how does it work for you via adapter?

[@ShahaanDalal]

I have just discovered your reviews and love them! Thank you! I've been teaching myself photography for a few years now and i'm definitely looking to upgrade my go to lens. I'm currently shooting with an old 7D (will upgrade the body after purchasing my next lens) so crop factor does come into play. While I am no professional, I believe I know my way around my camera. I primarily shoot nightlife photography, which means low light, lots of color, and I use an external flash with a diffuser so IS isn't that important because of the flash. My best lens is a Canon 28mm F1.8, such a magical lens! But being stuck with a 28mm prime can be limiting at times and because of my current problem of having a drop factor, the 28mm isn't wide enough. Autofocus in low light is VERY important as well.Having the option of F1.8 is also fantastic, but i don't always use it that low. I also like to use my camera for a lot of general use, family, street, rare photoshoots, landscapes on vacations. I would really like a wide zoom lens that can shoot well in low light situations, has an excellent auto focus and can be used as a general lens as well... Everything I've read on the mk3 lens seems like it would be perfect for me, but the price point is really daunting. What do you suggest if I can't quite afford the mk3? go down to the mk2? get the canon f4 IS lens or the tamron? I may have to rent all of these lenses to figure it out but would like a professionals opinion as well. Thank yoU! :)

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

If you can't afford the Canon Mark III, buy the Tamron 15-30. It may be the better choice for what you describe anyway due to have an image stabilizer.

[@ShahaanDalal]

Thanks for the reply! I'm going to rent this lens and try it out!

[@FlorianCortese]

Great review. Thanks, looks like I'll put my old Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II up for sale and go with the Tamron 15-30. I really like the option of VC/IS that it has to offer and the IQ between the two is close enough for me. Yes, it will require an add-on filter system, but I'll just use my 24-105 in those situations. Your reviews of these wide angle lenses has been great, informative and extremely helpful. Much appreciated!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Glad to help out, Florian.

[@thepanel2935]

... or don't use filters. Filters get used _much less_ these days than in the film era.

[@solush8]

You're right.. We Canadians really get bent over when it comes to purchases like this.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's not just Canadians - most markets outside of the US, Japan, and perhaps China take a pretty big hit. I think it stings more because we are so close to the US and get so much US based advertising that always lets us know that the grass in greener south of the border.

[@NasrAhmadTv]

عدسة عملاقة

[@smaruzzi]

Between the 2.8 mark II and the 4.0, which one would you recommend? IS seems to be a great addition, sufficient to compensate the difference in f. Thanks

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That depends on what you want to do with the lens, but yes, I think the f/4 lens should work well for most people.

[@MT-jf1tn]

Great video! Which will you suggest the f/4 or this new f/2.8? I'm playing to buy one probably just not for professional work

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

If you don't need the f/2.8 you can save yourself a lot of money and get the excellent f/4 lens. The f/2.8 is slightly better, but enough to justify the extra cost if you don't need the wider aperture.

[@VideoCameron]

This is awesome, thanks. Any idea how it compares to the Simga Art 35mm at 35mm obviously

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The Sigma is probably a hair sharper (both at f/2.8), but the Canon has more contrast.

[@swansong007]

Hi Dustin. My head is spinning regarding which to buy. The 16-35 f4 IS Or the 2.8 mark iii. Its hard for me to decide so I need your knowledge and expertise to guide me please. Thanks very much from England

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

What are you planning to shoot with the lens?

[@Majed750]

A big improvement for the Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8 LIII, so is it worth to buy it now

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think it is. It's definitely an exceptional lens in most ways.

[@gordonjohnston684]

I would have loved to see the improvement over the old Canon 16-35mm f2.8 mk2

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Sorry, I just don't have that lens on hand. You can see how the MKII compares to the 16-35 f/4 in my three way shootout series kzbin.info/aero/PLwWFV2kake9EchCnhDJddxN8cPDV5Mq1m. The MK III is just a hair better than the 16-35 f/4L IS.

[@thepanel2935]

Gordon Johnston, the version 3 is far and away a superior lens to the version 2. Trust me. The version II was not even worthy of being labelled a pro lens, IMHO.

[@sungwaileung]

Thank you so much for your review and replies to every comment, they're extremely helpful. Two more questions from a beginner here: Would there be less vignetting if I use the Mk. III on an apsc like the 80D? Also, would the in-camera peripheral illumination correction help improve the vignetting?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Yes and yes, though the latter is true only for JPEGs. If you shoot RAW, you need to apply the lens profile in your favorite editing software.

[@sungwaileung]

Thanks a lot for your prompt reply! Though I'm still struggling with the huge price difference, I think I'm leaning towards the Mk. III.

[@yaohuang6659]

Hello Dustin, Do you still recommend this lens for architecture?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

If architecture or interiors are your priority, I would recommend looking at a tilt shift lens. The Sigma 12-24mm F4 is also a good lens for architecture (lower distortion and vignette than this lens)

[@yaohuang6659]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you Dustin. I really appreciated your time to replied and very knowledgeable aspect of each lens.

[@MelvinDlaCruz]

just one questio??? for real state photo, the new sigma 12-24 f4 art vs this this canon?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Definitely the Sigma. Less distortion, wider focal length, less vignette. I just borrowed one from Sigma for a major real estate shoot that I just did.

[@MelvinDlaCruz]

ok thannks so much

[@johnkantar3082]

what's the chance of doing a review on ef 400 2.8 with a 2x adaptor and a 800 f5.6 would their be any difference in image quality. thank you John K

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Probably not very likely. I might be able to get either of those lenses sent to me, but almost certainly not at the same time.

[@thehun66]

How does the sigma 14-24 compare to the canon 16-35 image quality? Thank you…

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I really like the Sigma 14-24mm. If I were buying in that space, I'd probably go that route.

[@thehun66]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for the reply! I am leaning toward the sigma also thanks for helping me to decide.

[@manish4777]

Would you recommend to get my mark ii exchanged with mark iii in aprox 200$ US Preowned in good condition

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

If you can do it for $200, I'd definitely make that move.

[@sebasantos]

Great review! I am going to keep my 16-35mm f/4L IS. Comparing the price of this lens and the 2.8 III I think that the f/4 is a bargain. I hope Canon doesn't realize of that and raise its price hehe. Greetings!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think most f/4L IS owners will probably do as you are for now unless that price drops a fair bit.

[@tarotravelsphotography3612]

Would you recommend this lens or the 14mm prime or the Zeiss Distagon 15mm? It´ll be mainly for Landscape and Star Photography. (so I definetly need 2.8) I already have the 24-70 2.8 so I dont need the focal length from 24-35 from this lens . . .

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

This lens is pretty close to the Distagon 15mm while being cheaper, great AF, and with the zoom range, so I'd recommend this one.

[@tarotravelsphotography3612]

Thank you very much Sir. Please keep up the great work! Greetings from Austria. :)

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Taro Travels Photography My pleasure.

[@bitmastermac]

I sold the 16-35II for a f4IS. Am I selling that now? Not today. If I need 2.8 I have my Zeiss primes. Today I think the IS and weight of the f4IS makes it hard to toss.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Do you need f/2.8 on that focal length? The f/4 IS is still a great lens, so I'd only recommend the move if you really feel you need the faster aperture.

[@bitmastermac]

Dustin Abbott You've got the best reviews, bro. I love the way I always get a response. If you recognize me, you might remember I have most of the Zeiss primes (15, 21, 25, 28...) so I have really fast really wide lenses covered. I used to use the 16-35 2.8II in my street lens kit (sucked at f2.8), and for that today, the f4IS does better today. I'm gonna pick up that 35 1.4III before the vIII.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Captain Zouave Good call. That's a fabulous lens.

[@bitmastermac]

Sold my Voigtlanders (28 and 40) and Tamron 45 to make room, but I just ordered the 35LII 1.4. I'll keep the 16-35ƒ4 for bad weather.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Captain Zouave The 35L II is a beautiful lens. Enjoy!

[@hieplmt]

Hi Dustin, I just received my 16-35mm iii but the focus ring is a little lose with room for back and forth movement. Is your focus ring has the same issue? Please let me know thanks.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I don't recall that being the case.

[@hieplmt]

Dustin Abbott thank you very much justin! one more question, is it normal to hear the zoom barrel moving in this lens when you shake it?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I don't remember that being the case. It sounds like something may be loose in there.

[@brianbohn8734]

Dustin, another great review, thank you. I am looking to replace a canon 16-35MII for my 5DSR and torn between the Sigma 24-35 Art and this new Canon lens. I've rented the Sigma 24-35 Art a few times and found the optics to be fantastic much like the Sigma 50 Art I own. I also like that the "look" of the two Art lenses are similar as I'm doing commercial photography and want consistency on location shoots. If the Sigma was even 20-35 it would be an easier choice, but I'm wondering if the Canon is a better choice even at the high price tag as sometimes I do need wider than 24. (I could keep the old MII and buy the Sigma) How would you compare the MIII and the Sigma optically and which would you choose?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

+Brian Bohn That's a tough question. The 24-35 ART is a very good lens, but doesn't have much of a zoom range. I don't know that I would give either lens a big optical edge (the Canon has better coma control if you want to shoot the night sky, but has more vignette). Expect the AF performance on the Canon lens to best the Sigma, though wider focal lengths are a little less demanding. If you feel like you like the images coming out of the Sigma, then go for it.

[@brianbohn8734]

Thank you Dustin for your time! If no big optical advantage with either than I may rent the 16-35 and see how I like it. The AF speed and extra zoom range might edge out the Sigma. But the canon is so $$$.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It is pricey.

[@brianbohn8734]

Went with the Canon. Seems the Sigma is pretty soft at F2 and by 2.8 sharp as is the Canon. I typically shoot in the f4-f8 range anyway for my location commercial work. The extra zoom range and advanced weather sealing was the selling point. Sometimes i need to move quickly and there were a few times with the sigma where i had run out of room. And I'm sometimes in very dirty/dusty areas while shooting.

[@liverpool6139]

hi Dustin, another great review. thank you so much. f number aside what is the image comparison like between this and the Canon 16-35 f4? many thanks

[@liverpool6139]

image quality

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The f/2.8 lens is just a hair sharper at f/2.8 vs. f/4, but there isn't a major difference in IQ between the lenses. They are both excellent!

[@liverpool6139]

Thank you Dustin for the quick reply.

[@Kekar007]

what about between this lens and the 11-24mm?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

They are two very different lenses for two very different purposes. What suits your shooting needs more.

[@satar9]

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM with adapter for sony a7 series?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I haven't tested that combination, but it should work fine with either a Metabones 4th or 5th generation

[@zhenchen6361]

just one thing: you did the milkyway shot at F2.8? That coma is almost nothing.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I did. The coma performance is quite good.

[@zhenchen6361]

Thanks man! You review is so informative!

[@joelindooo]

I don't know why canon doesn't use IS for their bodies or most of their lenses! Canon is starting to push my buttons!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

They have been a little stubborn about that in some key lenses like this one or their 24-70.

[@akayemm8111945]

Hi , dear friend , can U solve my dilemma of 2.8 L III vs 4.0 choice ? Price is almost double ? :-( Further which one do U recommend purchasing either 2.8 L III or 4.0 PLUS 20mm USM no IS ? Cost of the two combinations is about same ! I'm spending sleepless nights ! BTW Canon India do not have any of these 3 lenses for demo purposes, any where in India , what a pity ! sic ! It's like Canon India want customer to eat poison first then decide ! ! So field testing/comparison is impossible . BRAVO Canon , the self declared world leaders in camera equipment ! Treat this as an SOS , literally n metaphorically

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

+AnilKumar Mittal Do you need low light performance, or do you plan to mostly shoot landscapes? The f/4 lens works great for landscape/general purpose

[@akayemm8111945]

ThanX for priority . But can't this one-stop "low light" be compensated" through within camera settings ?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

To some extent, though it requires bumping up ISO settings and thus potentially negatively impacting image quality. If you are an event shooter, moving to an f/2.8 lens might be worth the money, but if you mostly shoot landscapes/general purpose, go for the f/4 lens.

[@akayemm8111945]

Understood., thanX -->> Apologies for prolonging the dialogue. I am a generalist, trying to be wild life lover ! Most equipment suits wildlife, 3 cameras, 24-105, 70-200 f/4.0. Tamron 150-600, 600mm L II, plus 50mm f/1.8, 18-135, 18-55 -->> f/2.8 L III is without IS , f/4.0 is with 4 stop IS ? ? How much insignificant will be the absence of IS in event like situation, large group in low light at short distance ? I can always use my current 50mm f/1.8 or buy ONE MORE lens 20mm f/2.8 USM for such tight rare situations. f/4.0 IS plus 20mm f/2.8 USM will be cheaper than one 2.8 L III ! During long exposure conditions tripod is a must, so IS becomes redundant and also the need for larger aperture like 2.8 vs 4.0. Also the need of bokeh becomes insignificant during long exposure, correct ? I read one critique where the absence of IS has rendered this 2.8 L III lens one notch short of being the BEST in world of wide angle photography. So is the 4 stop image stabilization of f/4.0 important ? To what extent ?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

With still targets, IS makes a big difference. With people, however, there is always movement, so you still need to keep shutter speeds up a bit to account for their movement. So for events, bigger apertures are more important as they allow you to keep ISO down and get cleaner results. Modern bodies are pretty good, though, so the f/4 lens might be plenty for you.