Evan Baines Offline Image Upload: Off
|
p.1 #18 · 16-35 II vs. 17-40 for wedding work. | |
mauriceramirez wrote:
Anyone who thinks the 16-35 is in any way sharp probably hasn't used a 35L or even a cheap 28 f1.8, or any Nikon ultra-wide zoom for that matter. It's a vastly overrated lens.
I have the 16-35 (both versions) and use it only as a last resort. I used to have a 17-40 an for those on a budget, it IS a better value as long as its paired with a faster, sharp prime.
I haven't had the pleasure of using the Tamron but from the looks of it can only be better than the Canon when all factors are totaled up.
While it does have some strengths, Canon's got a bad rep for relative zoom sharpness and there's a reason.
-m
Maurice,
Its been my experience that Canon has big issues with lens sample variation. This is why I always try to buy lenses locally, where I can test multiple copies. I have a copy of the 16-35LII that I consider really solid throughout its range. Its not as sharp as my L primes, but one wouldn't expect it to be. Have you sent your 16-35LII in for calibration?
It seems a little strong to imply that anyone who likes the 16-35LII doesn't know what sharp is. The consensus seems to differ with you on this, including such lens afficionados as Hubsand, who I suspect is a more stringent judge of optical quality than either of us.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1635ii_a/c1635ii_a1.html
In my opinion, its a very good lens. Its not quite up to the new Nikon UW, but I also don't want to risk something going wrong with a Frankenstein adapter at a wedding, so its the best we have right now for UWA and its more than good enough IMO.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to why every post you make, you can't help but label anyone with a viewpoint other than your own as incompetent, stupid, ignorant, or downright malignant. 
BTW, if I haven't said so before, I love the work on your site.
Edited on Mar 27, 2008 at 08:32 PM
|