I'm looking at getting a 16-35L obviously for the wide angle uses. I rented the mk 2 while on vacation and wasn't very impressed with the sharpness, but I could have just gotten a bad copy.

Anyways...

The differences I see between the two are..

Weight: mk II is heavier
Filter size: Mk I is 77 Mk II is 82
Diaphragm Blades: Mk I has 7 Mk II has circular
Length: The Mk I is shorter by a few mm
Elements and Groups: Mk I has 14 elements in 10 groups and the Mk II has 16 elements in 12 groups.

I am using a 40d currently, but will probably get a 5dmkII when the cash comes in. Which lens is going to be better? I have a 24-70 which uses 77mm filters and my 70-200 can use a stepping ring and use 77 mm, so that makes me want to go Mk I.

Go for a Nikon 14 - 24 and a adapter from 16:9.

Why? Wouldn't that be manual focus only?

WhizKid wrote:
Why? Wouldn't that be manual focus only?

Yep, and stop down metering.

Both of which we tend to be fond of over here in the Alt System forum ;-)

It's a better lens than either 16-35.

And the mkII is a distinct upgrade over the mkI when it comes to the 16-35.

2 cent from a AF/MF shooter:

Buy a 17-40L and a Zuiko 21/3.5.

why did you post this in the Alt board?

The mkII is a much better lens, and if i was shooting FF Canon it would be at the top of my list. I enjoyed it oh-so-much on my 5D.
edit: Why do you want the 16-35? If you want it for F2.8 and AF, there isn't another game in town, besides the esoteric Zeiss N 17-35.

I keep hearing that the Mk II is so much better than the Mk I...

I actually owned both at the same time for a while and did a tripod test at f/2.8 & f/11 (both at 16mm and 35mm) and what I noticed is how similar the images were. Frankly I was disappointed that the new version was not dramatically better. In the end I sold the older lens but for the upgrade price I was disappointed. But I have read where users have been very pleased with the newer version. Maybe its sample variation but it was a letdown for me.

I have used the 16-35/2.8 L (both versions) a lot and like I have said before I have a love/hate relationship with this lens.

I am thinking about the new EF mount 21mm Distagon but I do need to go wider quite often. The other alternative I guess is the Nikon 14-24 G lens, but the downside is stopped down metering and the questionable wait to get the correct Canon adapter from 16:9.

My MK1 version is better than my friends MK2 version so Canon's QC means it's pot luck with either lens if you get one that is usable.

The new MK 2 is hands down better than the MK 1. I love it even more since I bought the ZF 18

Andi
you must have had a very lucky hand with your copy.

As time go by, I tried, years ago, a copy of the first version, vs the 17- 40, and kept the later. Recently, prior to get the 14-24, again a test, FF with a Mark-2 vs the 17-40.

It's been slightly better in some points, but worse in some other. The image looked flat, enhancing contrast in the Rconverter kinda enhanced CA, only. Probably, it's been a lemon, but who wants to buy a new lens and start arguing with canon' s reps?

I know, I should have kept the files, but it was so disappointing, that I trashed them next day. With the 14-24, I'm a happy camper, now. Just worlds between them. But of course, its manual -, or better: semi-auto focusing, with the AF-confirm-chip at the 16:9-adapter.


@WhizKid:
When testing, you absolutly should use a FF, as you intend to go for a 5 D. My copy of the 17-40 works fine at crop 1.3 to 1.5, but at FF, it clearly has its shortcomings.

Somehow, you' ve to set your priorities: IQ vs the convenience of autofocus, etc.

I think the mk has greatly improved contrast over the old, bellow 20mm corners are a bit soft, remarkable at infinity. I dont see any flatness and barely any CA though. The one thing I have to say is that when I rented a 1ds3 the focus was off and I had no time to learn to micro-adjust it.

The 14-24 may be the better lens, however its huge and much slower to use. Also the range is different.

here is a CA sample, uncorrected at 18mm f11

Looks good
the copy I tested was MUCH worse, in terms of CA and corner sharpness.

montespluga wrote:
Looks good
the copy I tested was MUCH worse, in terms of CA and corner sharpness.

Maybe the Samichlaus will bring you one which is better! :-)

Well, I' m fine with my 14-24; you must have the best ever produced copy - worlwide ;-)
How many did you tested?

bought it from a really nice seller on FM which bought it new at keh I believe. No testing. If you look at Hubsands test you can see that in his Leica/Oly/MKii test the MKii was just about as good as the Leica, also I have seen a couple of samples here which had maybe better corner sharpness, so I dont think its the best ever. Maybe you just got one from the first batch of this lens. And dont get me wrong there is still room for improvement. I wished it performed as good at 16mm as 24mm

But your not one of the cool kids without the 14-24. We snub your MKII.

(That crop does look very good)

Sorry for posting this in Alt forum. I will be using it for weddings so I would want to go Canon for the convenience.

If you are shooting weddings then honestly I would use either Canon 16-35. Maybe try out the lens and test if you have a good one.

The autofocus, metering, etc convenience really out ways any coolness of shooting with Leica, Zeiss or any other manual stopped down metering glass. Shooting weddings is about moving quickly and obtaining a high success ratio. If you were shooting landscapes or architecture then I might suggest otherwise.

The nice thing about an all Canon system is that you will keep your settings when switching lenses: this is handy in fast moving situations like weddings.

Be careful about zooming too wide though: brides and their arms look massive when shot with a 16mm lens...