Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM £899.99 Jacobs Digital instore (maybe phone) - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
187Expired

Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM £899.99 Jacobs Digital instore (maybe phone)

£899.99 @ Testing
Not cheap but I have been waiting for a sub £900 price for donkey years. Cheaper than ebay second hand. This lens won't drop much in value - even second hand. _________ To meet the growing… Read More
anh_duong Avatar
6y, 7m agoFound 6 years, 7 months ago
Not cheap but I have been waiting for a sub £900 price for donkey years. Cheaper than ebay second hand. This lens won't drop much in value - even second hand.

_________

To meet the growing demand of digital SLR owners, this ultra-wide-angle zoom offers a broader view, fast aperture, and closer focusing down to 11 in. (.28m). The first EF wide-angle zoom to combine three Aspherical elements and Canon’s UD glass, the lens remains compact while providing superior image quality across its range. Constructed to pro standards, it’s also highly resistant to dust and moisture.

A new EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens succeeds the versatile EF16-35mm f/2.8L USM Lens as a high-performance L-series wide-angle zoom lens, specifically designed for improved peripheral image quality. Compatible with all EOS SLRs past and present, it uses three high-precision aspherical lens elements and two Ultra Low Dispersion (UD) lens elements to minimize lateral chromatic aberration and to produce superb image quality with excellent resolution and contrast. New coatings minimise ghosting and flare. It is an internal focus design, so the front element does not rotate during focusing and zooming, a convenience for users of circular polariser filters. The lens is also fully gasketed and sealed for dust and moisture resistance, and it features an electronic diaphragm with circular blades for natural-looking background blur effects.
More From Testing:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
anh_duong Avatar
6y, 7m agoFound 6 years, 7 months ago
Options

All Comments

(17) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
1 Like #1
It's a lovely lens, nice improvement over the MKI, the only downside was having to shell out a couple of hundred pounds+ for the 82mm filters you need to fit this lens.

Don't forget to factor this in if you like to have a CPL and a couple of ND filters for all your lenses :(



Edited By: kiwikeen on Nov 03, 2010 12:24: :
#3

wouldn't let me order online since out of stock.. i think you can order over the phone tho..
#4
Wouldn't let me either but can be ordered over the phone - this is a great lens and will go up in value rather than down!
#5
Great price... almost tempting to grab this and a converter ring for my nikon.
#6
Always cannon deals :(
#7
oh oh oh that's tempting!

must not buy must not buy

not great for video so i'll use that as my excuse to not buy it
#8
tmj2007
Great price... almost tempting to grab this and a converter ring for my nikon.


Or buy what you really want: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000VDCTCI/
#9
Great deal -- £100 cheaper than other places

Here's the price history from CameraPriceBuster
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod319.html
#10
17-40 is better. And, yes I have both and shoot with 40D, 5D Mk2 & 1D Mk4
#11
sicknote
17-40 is better. And, yes I have both and shoot with 40D, 5D Mk2 & 1D Mk4


the 16-35 is better at shooting at 16mm. Also the 17-40 is f4... sure in good light at 17-40 you are right, but just saying "it's better" is wrong
#12
WOw, tempted
1 Like #13
Agree with sp3ctre - it totally depends what you need it for. Both amazing lenses.

Shooting concerts in lowlight will probably be better with the f/2.8 lens vs. f/4 I would imagine?

The 17-40 is about half the price


Fred Miranda reviews

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=313&sort=7&cat=27&page=1
Reviews: 98
Recommended By: 90% of reviewers
Build Quality Rating: 9.84
Price Rating: 8.01
Overall Rating: 9.3


Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3
Reviews: 487
Recommended By: 90% of reviewers
Build Quality Rating: 9.53
Price Rating: 8.86
Overall Rating: 9.0


Edited By: kowalski on Nov 03, 2010 21:57: bold
#14
kowalski
Agree with sp3ctre - it totally depends what you need it for. Both amazing lenses.
Shooting concerts in lowlight will probably be better with the f/2.8 lens vs. f/4 I would imagine?


Well having twice as much light coming into the camera is always a plus, and few lenses are as sharp wide open as they are at f8/f11.

That's one of the big plus points with faster lenses, you're less likely to have to shoot wide open.
#15
i got this lens already!!! ;oP
#16
The website now says £999 and out of stock so perhaps this has now expired.

I'm looking for a 17-40mm myself as I cant justify the price of this even though it's a bargain for this particular lens.
2 Likes #17
sicknote
17-40 is better. And, yes I have both and shoot with 40D, 5D Mk2 & 1D Mk4

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by better, and I'm surprised you own both lenses if you actually think that the 17-40mm is a better lens overall, especially seeing as you own a full frame body.

I too own both and will jot down a few pro and cons for any who are thinking about picking up one of these.

16-35mm mkII pros over the 17-40mm :

Double the light to play with
Sharpens up about a stop earlier
Far less vignetting on a full frame camera, still a noticeable difference on the 1D, slightly better on a 1.6 body
Slightly better bokeh
1mm wider, when shooting wide ever little bit counts

Cons :

Price, nearly double the price, even more if you factor in a couple of 82mm filters
Heavier and bulkier
Lacks the extra 5mm at the long end

Both are really great pieces of glass, if I had to choose between the two I'd go with the 16-35mm due to the fact it's faster, there really is no substitue to light, I find my version to be very slightly sharper than my 17-40mm, and the vignetting is an issue for me and I'd prefer to minimise it at source rather than process it out.

I still use the 17-40mm over the 16-35mm when I can get away with it, mostly due to the lighter weight, and extra reach, every gram counts when you're holding a camera for hours at a time.

Overall if vignetting is an isssue for you, or you need the speed, pay the premium and go for the 16-35mm, if not grab the 17-40mm and put the pennies you saved towards another lens.

Hope this helps anyone unsure of which lens would suit them more.






Edited By: kiwikeen on Nov 04, 2010 09:43: :

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!