It was hard enough to make sense of DxO's numbers and ignore the "faux statistics" they produce by combining multiple measurements. But at least it used to be easy to select a handful of lenses or cameras for comparison. On my latest visit - unless I missed some link or other to how it used to be - the interface has changed, and now the site is close to un-useable.
I have been saying for ages the 16-35 IS isn't the technological marvel it's made out to be, the findings are exactly in line with my own, the 16-35 IS is only a tiny bit better than the 17-40L (especially stopped down) and not at it's best at 35mm
dhphoto wrote:
I have been saying for ages the 16-35 IS isn't the technological marvel it's made out to be, the findings are exactly in line with my own, the 16-35 IS is only a tiny bit better than the 17-40L (especially stopped down) and not at it's best at 35mm
My experience is the opposite, with respect to the 17-40/4L.in particular.
I compared the old 16-35 f/2.8L (version 1) against the 16-35 f/4L IS. At f/4 the centers are indeed very similar, but the key upgrade was to the edges and corners, which are light years superior and considerably more resistant to flare. I'm not sure DXOMark is taking this into consideration.
I also disagree that this lens was targeted to videographers. I'm an editorial photographer and I've shot dozens of assignments under really nasty light and the IS function is extremely useful for still photography.
dhphoto wrote:
I have been saying for ages the 16-35 IS isn't the technological marvel it's made out to be, the findings are exactly in line with my own, the 16-35 IS is only a tiny bit better than the 17-40L (especially stopped down) and not at it's best at 35mm
Resolution, vignetting, ca + IS ... if you live @ f8, that narrows the gap for a lot of things, but that doesn't take away from the improvements.
I've never used the 17-40 apart from a few shots here and there, but the 16-35/4 is A LOT better than the 16-35/2.8 II in my experience. I have zero regrets ditching the latter for the former.
I bought this lens for occasional Real Estate Photography and it has not let me down. I have shot thousands of shots with it and not one single instance of CA. Only a couple of times I've seen glare and I expected it then but had to shoot towards the sun for the shot. I've also had and liked the 17 40 but IMO this lens is much, much better all around. Sharp corner to corner and the IS is appreciated. I have absolutely no regrets on this lens.
kezeka wrote:
Thats because DXo measures resolution based on sensor limitations rather than measuring the actual sharpness and/or resolution of the lens itself. If you actually want to know about the equipment and not some website's opinion, I recommend you read Rodger's post over at lensrentals.com comparing the canon UWA zooms.
It's actually because the "PMP" number is a composite of each aperture the lens may be shot at. Because the lens stops down to f/22, you effectively have the f/11, f/16, and f/22 measurements (representing 50% of apertures tested) damping any increase in resolution between the two. Because the lenses already score about 75% of the resolution of the sensor, an increase from e.g. 15 to 18 at f/4 will be averaged down to only +1.
I wanted to get Canon or Nikon 16- 35 f4 to make lighter setup vs my Nikon 14-24 to avoid buying very expensive Lee filters. But it looks like D810+ 14-24 just can't be beat by 16 -35 f4 Canon Lens as it can't be beat by 16 -35 from Nikon
I love Canon 6D as I do 70 - 200 f4 IS. Super light and Stunning Sharpness. So my wish for Canon 16 - 35 score was very high. But I guess I will still carry big and heavy 14 -24 and invest even more at LEE Filters SW150 Mark II. More I read DXO... more confused I get
dhphoto wrote:
I have been saying for ages the 16-35 IS isn't the technological marvel it's made out to be, the findings are exactly in line with my own, the 16-35 IS is only a tiny bit better than the 17-40L (especially stopped down) and not at it's best at 35mm
In my own experiences and othe rpeoples, and just about every test out there online apart from DXOmark it is that good.
DXO's way of measuring and scoring things is just stupid. meaningless drivel. For some reason people do look at them, and sadly spend hard earned money due to their inept advice.
PIOK wrote:
I wanted to get Canon or Nikon 16- 35 f4 to make lighter setup vs my Nikon 14-24 to avoid buying very expensive Lee filters. But it looks like D810+ 14-24 just can't be beat by 16 -35 f4 Canon Lens as it can't be beat by 16 -35 from Nikon
I love Canon 6D as I do 70 - 200 f4 IS. Super light and Stunning Sharpness. So my wish for Canon 16 - 35 score was very high. But I guess I will still carry big and heavy 14 -24 and invest even more at LEE Filters SW150 Mark II. More I read DXO... more confused I get ...Show more →
The overwhelming majority of users LOVE this lens. Just forget about DXO and order one and try it for yourself. I just bet you won't be disappointed. You're depriving yourself for no reason other than your own choices.
I'm old, and 6'3 inches and while shooting real estate, many times I'm holding my 5DIII with this lens mounted in one hand and a 600 EX RT in the other (with others placed around) so that I can direct the light. This means I am shooting with one hand. I've done this for 3 to 4 houses in a row without being uncomfortable. I can't say it's incredibly light, but it's light enough. If you have a 6D and need this focal range, this lens delivers.
The comments by DXO stating that you don't need IS for wide angles just show how far out of touch with photographers they have become.
The IS is to me one of this great lenses greatest assets.
Excellent IS combined with excellent optics make this my go to wide angle.
alundeb wrote:
"Best at" refers to the focal length and aperture where the highest DxoMark Score is acheived. That is the overall score. Again, that includes T-Stop. They rate lenses based on their ability to photograph a low-light scene, not only MTF and aberrations. We can ignore the score if we don't need it, but if you assume that DxO don't record that lenses improve in sharpness stopped down, you are wrong.
"'Best at' refers to the focal length and aperture where the highest DxoMark Score is acheived.." — And that is the problem. It's all so damned unintuitive and counterintuitive. Nothing means what it literally means, but has to be interpreted through site-specific definitions and internal references. Blah.
