Slabshaft
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Ready for an hour read? . . . .
This is kind of old, but still relevant. My feelings about the 16-35 were mixed after shooting Death Valley. I came away with some good shots, but a few things bugged me constantly about that lens. Results were fairly sharp, but the corners while in the 16-20mm range constantly had this stretched "motion blur" look to them which is hard to correct. The length and weight and finish of the lens also contributed to awkward tripod balancing acts and extremely hazardous lens changes (afraid of dropping it over a cliff or into the water with cold hands).
Fast forward to a month ago. I rented the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 for a 2-week road trip up the west coast. I was super impressed by the contrast, sharpness and distortion of that lens. Instantly, it was just FUN to use. I produced some fantastically sharp/contrasty files. Very very happy with that lens I would easily go for that over the 16-35. However, the weight and size was worse than the 16-35 and made for two scary tripod crashes and unbalanced backpack. Forget about hanging it by the neck. The flare is also obnoxious. I have fool proof workarounds for that, but it's annoying to always be blending images in post processing due to flare. As posted previously, it is very prone to unexpected flares, not cool to discover later on. I also hate worrying about the front element while maneuvering through bushes and whatnot and I hate the filter solutions. All in all, it was like owning some kind of finicky race car Awesome performance and fun for sure, but just too difficult to and hazardous to live with.
Flash forward to yesterday. I got the new 18-35mm G lens in (rented). First impression is that the contrast and sharpness are a VERY small step down from the Tokina and a step up from the 16-25. Flare resistance is same as the 16-35. Weight is 1/3 of the Tokina. In-camera on-screen impressions weren't super exciting on the sharpness and contrast immediately. However, the files are very 'clean'. Then I discovered in PS, the files made by this lens are very easily sharpened while maintaining a pleasant, naturally sharp/contrasty look. Purists hate that idea, but I'm an engineer, not a purist. The sharpness and clarity I can get in post processing from this lens is easily on par with the Tokina. That's comparing two processed images. If I sharpen the Tokina images, they don't tend to look much nicer than native output. Sharp, yes. Nice, no. They push into the oversharpened/harsh range pretty quick.
- I haven't mentioned the distortion since it's just low enough to not bother me.
- Flare control isn't the Voigtlander 20mm, but it's good enough to not be annoying once you put the hood on.
- Contrast and sharpness isn't Zeiss level, but it's pretty damn good for a lens of this size and price. I already know this will produce sharp 16x24 prints.
- Very light weight for backpacking or hanging around the neck and the size is just right. Makes for very safe lens changes.
- CA control is great. I think that's contributing to the clean files.
- Corners aren't perfect, but they are much better than the 16-35. A step down from the Tokina. They are certainly good enough for me, and I'm pretty picky.
- Max aperture . . . I only shoot f/8 and up anyway.
- Doesn't vignette badly with filters in place.
Anyway, just some info hopefully people find helpful.
Right now, I have a feeling I will be buying this lens. For super wide, I will supplement it with the 14mm Samyang. That combo will still weigh less than the Tokina alone  I have it for another week, so we'll see how it goes.
|
! Too funny, I'm in the exact same boat! 
)
but I know that lens hero is pretty good with getting a bunch of possible lenses for you 