SLR-Camera Reviews

On a DSLR with 1.3x or 1.6x cropping, such as the 10D or 1D, you will see no difference in the images produced by this lens and the twice-as-expensive EF 16-35 f/2.8L. So if you don't need the extra f-stop, go with this one and save yourself $700.

On 35mm film or the 1Ds, you'll see more vignetting with this lens, but the images are still excellent, and this lens has less flare than the 16-35.

The 16-35 is marginally sharper near the 35mm focal length, and does have much better bokeh, if that's important to you.

If you take lots of wide-angle shots, this lens is a must-have. It's one of the less expensive "L" lenses, making it a relative bargain.

If you get paid for your photos, you should own the f/2.8L instead. For the rest of us, this is a fantastic lens, my second Canon L lens after the 100-400. Construction quality is first rate. Images are sharp. The range of the zoom is excellent. For film. On an APS-C sized sensor (Canon 10D or DRebel) this isn't an exciting range and is only marginally wide angle. Though the Sigma 12-24mm is slower and (on paper) lower resolution---that might be the lens of choice for this range on a digital camera.

What can I say? Yes, it's a bit expensive. And yes, it weighs about a ton. But the quality of this lens is absolutely great. If you own a DSLR like the D30, D60 or 10D this lense effectively becomes a 25.6-56 mm zoom. Which is great since there aren't that many high quality moderate wide-angle lenses available for these DSLR's. If used on a 1Ds or a film SLR then the 16-35 suddenly becomes the stuff that dreams are made of. This is one hell of a lens! If you are planning to buy a wide-angle zoom lens for your EOS camera and are considering the purchase of a non-Canon lens, don't do it! I used a few of those before buying the 16-35 f/2.8L USM and regretted it almost from day one. Yes, they are cheaper, but if you're serious about photography in the long run you'll end up buying the real thing anyway. So better wait and save up a litlle longer.

This lens is the best in its class. I wish every lens I had was this sharp. This thing is top notch.

This lens is simply an AMAZING - fast, quiet, great picture quality and color, and MACRO. If you don't already have a Macro (and not the pseudo-macros like the 28-135), you should strongly consider getting one, you'll be quite suprised by the difference it makes.

Ive had this lens for quite a while and used it in several EOS cameras without one single complaint. I was excited when Canon rolled out the Digital Rebel, since it would allow me to use this fine lens in a digital setting. The results are quite good, with fast focusing and excellent image definition. Using it with the Rebel requires some work in Photoshop (unsharp mask) to obtain superlative results. Overall it is one of the finest macros (if not the finest) that I have ever used.

This lens without a doubt deserves the "L" label that Canon only puts on their 'best' lenses. Not only are the pictures *incredibly* sharp, but the focusing is fast (includes a USM motor with overridable manual focus), quiet, and the lens is constructed like a tank. It's my favorite lens and I highly recommend it.

Very light and compact. This makes a great "traveling" lens. I take about 15% of my pictures with this lens, mostly out on hikes where I don't want to haul around my expensive & heavy 70-200 f/2.8 L. This lens paired with an EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM or EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM will give you a compact, light-weight package that you can take along on trips or nature hikes, and cover all of the useful focal lengths.

Much better image quality than Canon's EF 75-300 lenses. Ring USM for fast auto-focus, but no image stabilization. Good build quality for the money spent.

Sharpness drops off noticably past 200mm or so, with some flaws around the edges, but images are still acceptable for the most part. Great lens for 10D/Rebel/300D digital cameras, since the 1.6x cropping will eliminate the flaws at the egdes of the picture at the longer focal lengths, and make this lens effetively a 150-450mm.

Best used stopped down to f/8 or f/11, in good light or with fast film (or digital camera set at ISO 400+). Not recommended for low-light situations, but could be useful for indoor flash close-up portraits.

For the $250-$300 price range, this lens can't be beat. To get noticeably better image quality, you would have to spend twice as much. If you're inclined to do so, check out the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L.

I love this camera! My husband gave it to be for Christmas last year. It is easier to use than my compact 35-mm camera is. Very, very easy to use. Just took it on vacation and pictures came out fabulous. When on vacation, I had several people comment on the camera and ask how I liked it. When I was purchasing souveniers at one vacation spot, I was asked if I was a professional photography. I had a good laugh over that one. So far have only used it in the totally automatic mode and have not been disappointed. Tested it this summer with close-ups to see what it could do and was not disappointed there either. I think I'll ask for the 300 mm lense this Christmas.

This lens is very good. Picture is very sharp with 100-200 mm. and it's perfect for head&body portrait. I love this lens. In 300 mm area you can see softness but it's not much.

And I compared with 28-105,this one is sharper at 100 than28-105 @105, and it shows much less distortion.

Compared with 75-300mm USM, this one seems sharper than 75-300, with the focus speed almost the same.

Of course, there are other better ones(like 70-200 f2.8L or other fixed focal telephoto lenses), but look what you pay for, it's really a good deal for amateur photographers.