Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L ll USM Zoom Lens for Canon EF Cameras

I've been transitioning all my equipment to full frame (from my 60D to my 5D). So I used and loved my 10-22mm lens the few years I had it. Certainly the cost is extremely higher on the full frame bodies and lenses, but man this lens is incredible.The focal length is almost 100% identical to the 10-22mm (focal length measurements adjusted for crop body, 10-22 = 16-35 on a full frame sensor), so if you've ever used that lens you know what to expect focal-range-wise. Unlike the 10-22mm which does not fit a full frame body, you *can* use this lens on any body, whether cropped or full-frame, but it is *definitely* not worth the price if you are just going to be using it on a cropped sensor camera (60D, 70D, T4i, T5i, etc), because you lose the extreme wide end which is what is so awesome about the lens.I've used the lens quite a bit for real estate photography for great wide shots of rooms that can get *all four walls* in the frame at its widest. Really any architecture or landscape shot will look incredibly awesome at 16mm due to the very interesting perspective achieved at ultra-wide. You'll want to dial back the aperture though since at 2.8 you won't get tack sharp focus at very much of the image. But if you have a particular subject you want to focus on rather than the entire scene, 2.8 is great as it allows for better shots in low light or better bokeh, depending on what you're going for (the 10-22mm's max aperture on the other hand is only 3.5-4.5).If you look at 100% crops near the corners of shots taken at either focal extreme, it's not perfect, but it can get pretty close to perfect when you get the lighting and depth of field just right. I am honestly very happy with the copy I got as far as overall sharpness goes. The majority of its use is in video, paired with my Glidecam, and those two pieces of equipment make an epic pair. In 1080p video the entire shot looks nearly perfect with minimal work, so the fact that 22 megapixel photos don't look perfect in every spot in every situation doesn't matter too much for me as I purchased it with a much higher priority on video quality. And videos with this lens are amazing.The included lens hood and pouch are just icing on the cake. The Canon-branded hood I bought for my 10-22mm was the most expensive hood I ever purchased, so I appreciate that the L-series lenses come with them bundled in.Autofocus is very quick and 100% accurate on my copy, another noticeable improvement from my old 10-22mm. There is no IS but at 16mm you would rarely need IS, so I am okay with that omission, especially considering how much extra weight and cost IS would add to the lens.The date code on mine showed it was manufactured in 2013 (purchased in Feb 2014), which is good because I always worry about dropping a ton of cash and somehow ending up with a really old copy. Mine is flawless and I am enthusiastically looking forward to many years of use on this lens.

I've been using this lens for almost 3 years now and is my tried and true walk-around lens. For an ultra wide zoom, I never thought I'd come to love the bokeh it renders when using at 35mm, close focus distances, wide open. The lens also makes incredible 14 point sunstars when you're going for that effect, it's absolutely fantastic! I happen to use this indoors and outdoors for both landscape and street photography. I've found the extra stop of light extremely valuable, to the point where some shots just would not have been possible (e.g. indoor cathedral, candle light @ 16mm, hand held, 1/4sec).I don't have any experience using the mkI, but I have traded my 16-35 II with a co-workers 17-40 for a few weeks and made the the following observations (on full frame):1) wide open, noticeably better performance in the corners on the 16-35 (all focal lengths), just a hair sharper in the center.2) sunstars are far more pleasant on the 16-35, and not as clearly defined on the 17-40 (even at f16). I'm a big fan of landscape photography and creating sunstars3) obviously, a stop faster, allowing for shots at night or indoors that otherwise would be impossible handheld4) 1mm on the wide spectrum is far more useful than 5mm on the long end.That said, it's highly arguable if it's worth paying twice as much for a very similar lens. For my needs, there was no question which lens belonged in my kit, but sometimes regret paying so much for it. The 17-40 is a much better value for the $, unless you absolutely need the widest, fastest, zoom lens in canon's lineup (as of march 2011).As much praise as I have for this lens, there are two things that fall short for me:1) Chromatic Aberation. My biggest dissapointment with this lens is the mild to moderate chromatic aberation (some situations worse than others) in the corners at nearly all apertures, something I was hoping all the numerous UD and aspheric elements would have corrected for. Thinking this was a defect, I returned my first copy to have a second copy exhibit the same CA. I sent it into Canon who reported nothing wrong with the lens/camera combo. I can deal with the softer corners (others have complained of) wide open since those are the areas I usually want out of focus when shooting @ 2.8, but it's annoying to have to correct for CA, due to how often I shoot with this lens. Not a deal breaker for me since I can correct in post, but it's annoying and something important to note.2) Softer center at 35mm @ 2.8. This zoom is tack sharp in the center from 16-28 wide open. The center resolution @ 35mm falls off more than I would have liked.If Canon ever released an answer to Nikon's 14-24 2.8, I would not trade this lens. An extra 2mm on the wide end would be fantastic, but losing 24-35mm would kill the versatility of the lens for me as a day-in-day-out, do-everything lens!