stanj wrote:
Maybe because it was a prototype? The 16-35/II wasn't available a couple of years ago.
Okay, so maybe it was about 18 months ago. The 16-35L II is only marginally better than version I and does not even come close to matching the 14-24 Nikon, unless you have an exceptional/rare copy. And from what I have read so far, I think both the 24L II and ZE 21 Distagon should be sharper than the Nikon .... which leaves the 16-35L II in the dust.
bobbytan wrote:
And from what I have read so far, I think both the 24L II and ZE 21 Distagon should be sharper than the Nikon .... which leaves the 16-35L II in the dust.
Bobby, I just can not bring myself to start doing comparisons of my real 16-35 MkII against two lenses which don't exist yet, as well as a Nikon zoom which does not even work on my EOS cameras without adapters and a loss of EF functionality.
My 1DS3 and 16-35 II just returned from Canon cleaning and calibration and are as good as I can see for real world images. My 24 f2.8 also does an exelent job in the real world. I haven't had the need to pixel peek as enlargements to 72X48 are execellent.
I would like a 24L 1.4 for low light work for which I do very seldom, but for now I settle for my 50 f1.4.
Paul Gardner wrote:
My 24 f2.8 also does an exelent job in the real world.
Of course, that one is also a decent 24mm lens. If anything, the Distagon 21mm f/2.8 should be compared to that one, not the 24L.
As they say in small town Alaska: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta."
PetKal wrote:
Of course, that one is also a decent 24mm lens. If anything, the Distagon 21mm f/2.8 should be compared to that one, not the 24L.
As they say in small town Alaska: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta."
But I think the original intent was "hic rodus, hic salta", i.e., "here's your rod (pole), vault now" (not "you're in Rhodes...").
So the lesson could be "you've got a lens, no need to rely on witnesses saying you've made good photos, make some good ones here and now!"
Or to really stretch the analogy, "shoot with what'cha got".
Anyway, I think for a landscape shooter, the biggest difference between those lenses is the 3mm. When subjects are moving, f/1.4 matters and you can work with a focal length by changing your position. For a landscape, field of view makes a big difference.
Photon wrote: But I think the original intent was "hic rodus, hic salta", i.e., "here's your rod (pole), vault now" (not "you're in Rhodes...").
So the lesson could be "you've got a lens, no need to rely on witnesses saying you've made good photos, make some good ones here and now!"
Or to really stretch the analogy, "shoot with what'cha got".
Jess, you may well be right, I've heard/read even weirder things than that on TV, Internet and in the print. Like..." Hick has the rod, hick got the salt"
PetKal wrote:
Jess, you may well be right, I've heard/read even weirder things than that on TV, Internet and in the print. Like..." Hick has the rod, hick got the salt"
I think over in the Macro forum it would be "Hicks has the rod", 'cause Hicks is the moderator.
There's some interesting background on the phrase you used on a website about, of all things (don't be afraid, folks), Marxism. !!! Here it is:
For one, I don't know of any reviews yet. Probably still too early for that considering the anticipated lens availability in December (at least in Canada).
bobbytan wrote:
Thanks for the link Tim. I pre-ordered one this morning!
Lucky!
Keep us posted. This lens is definitely on my list, probably wait until after the new year to pick it up. Luckily the pretty high price of the MKII shouldn't diminish the resale value of my currently 24L.
Speaking of the 24L MK1. Since these lenses are still selling how will the market handle the arrival of the MK2 and the current supply of the MK1? Will amazon, B&H, and others have both for sale?
Keep us posted. This lens is definitely on my list, probably wait until after the new year to pick it up. Luckily the pretty high price of the MKII shouldn't diminish the resale value of my currently 24L.
Frankly, I pre-ordered it against my better judgement. My heart tells me that this lens will be a killer lens for indoor use, shooting buildings, general landscape, and travel. My head tells me that I shouldn't be spending any more money in the light of the very serious economic situation where most people are at risk in one way or another. So depending on how the next few weeks pan out, I may decide to bail out before the lens ships .... or worse .... take delivery of the lens and having to sell it shortly afterwards and take a hit.
No .... not at all. This is not a first-generation lens. My head tells me that the Mk II HAS to be better than the Mk I .... just like the 14L II and 85L II are both better than the original version. I will be an early adopter of the 5D Mk II too, and I am pretty confident that it's not going to have any major issues.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Doesn't your head tells you not to be an early adopter?
Like..." Hick has the rod, hick got the salt" 
Here it is: