p.12 #3 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
BeeMan458 wrote:
Face it, you just like to whip on the 16-35.
BeeMan458 wrote:
Got no problem with folks being critical of Canon or the 16-35.
Really? Doesn't sound like that to me.
I'm just looking forward to the improvements, despite the fact that there are sharper lenses out there in the same focal range. And I guess I can compare MTFs to the Leica 19 *here* after all...
p.12 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"Doesn't sound like that to me. "
There's a huge difference between whipping and simply being critical. Your idea of being critical is a bit like the Marque's idea of a reasonable comment; it's all a matter of degrees until one stops breathing. Jeff laid the horse to rest, so whip, don't whip, compare, don't compare, organic, leather or plastic; enjoy.
p.12 #8 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I don't know anybody who shoots at 16mm when they need 19mm coverage, But, using some of this reasoning, at least that way they could chop off the, 3mm of fuzzy edges and achieve lens Nirvana. Or were they already using a crop instead of FF sensor?
Or were they planning to use the Primo Zeiss/Leica primes for the center and graft on the fuzzy 16mm Canon (or 12mm Sigma-much darker!) edges to cover the rest of the scene.
Different designs for different applications. Seriously, why not discuss how many Angeles can dance on a sensor Pixel (how many u's big and how big is the light bucket)?
p.12 #9 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
justruss wrote:
So, what do you think... will the new 16-35L win back some CZ 21 converts? or at least put up one more barrier to those thinking of jumping the canon WZ Zoom ship?
Win back? I doubt it. I think your 'barrier' example will happen more. I probably would have never switched. We'll have to see how the CA and distortion look first. Personally, I'll need to see how it fares at f/11 and f/16 first.
I think the biggest shift will come from the 17-40L users who are using it because they feel it is a better performer than the 16-35 I, and not because of the lower price point.
p.12 #10 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Grant808 wrote:
I think the biggest shift will come from the 17-40L users who are using it because they feel it is a better performer than the 16-35 I, and not because of the lower price point.
p.12 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
after seeing the MTF charts... I'm soooo dumping my old 16-35mm... with my 1d mkII 1.3x crop I'll be in the sweet spot all the time with this new one !!! bo-yea !
p.12 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I am hoping it would be good at both ends or at least better than the 24-70L at the 24-35 end - even though the 24-70L is MUCH better than the 24-105L at 24mm. The 24-105L at 24mm really suck!
Canon needs to bring out some ass-kicking w/a zooms, and I hope the 16-35L II is one of them.
gearhead5 wrote:
You got that right, especially on the short end.
I suppose we all have to get real and not to expect this lens to be anywhere near as good as the likes of the Leica Elmarit-R 19/2.8 or Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8.
p.12 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
gearhead5 wrote:
You got that right, especially on the short end.
I'm probably one of them. For a lot of situations a much-improved 16-35mkII would let me leave the 35L at home, whereas I often bring it as a companion to the 17-40.
p.12 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
bobbytan wrote:
My hopes for an "ass-kicking" 16-35/2.8L II is somewhat dashed by the performance of the EF 35L ..... which is unquestionably Canon's best w/a lens:
I suppose we all have to get real and not to expect this lens to be anywhere near as good as the likes of the Leica Elmarit-R 19/2.8 or Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8.
Its all in the lens coatings. We will have to wait and see if Canon has improved them over the 35L, My experience is with the 24-105, and the new 70-200 F4 is that they have improved them, but they are not upto the same standard as the German glass. It is important to remember that the Canon is usually cheaper vis-a-vis the German equivalent.
p.12 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Andrew Gough wrote:
Its all in the lens coatings. We will have to wait and see if Canon has improved them over the 35L, My experience is with the 24-105, and the new 70-200 F4 is that they have improved them, but they are not upto the same standard as the German glass. It is important to remember that the Canon is usually cheaper vis-a-vis the German equivalent.
Its not only in the lens coatings...that new ground and polished element should have a real impact
p.12 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
bobbytan wrote:
My hopes for an "ass-kicking" 16-35/2.8L II is somewhat dashed by the performance of the EF 35L ..... which is unquestionably Canon's best w/a lens:
I suppose we all have to get real and not to expect this lens to be anywhere near as good as the likes of the Leica Elmarit-R 19/2.8 or Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8.
p.12 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
The mk I version had 3 aspherical (one ground and polished) as well as well as two UD elements. Both the new and old share the same number and type of aspherical elements and two UD elements. There are two more elements in the new one though.....
p.12 #20 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
if i am understanding...
the mtf represents theoretical performance (as opposed to be a measurement from a 'sample' lens)
so does the mtf consider the effects of the lens coatings, ud glass etc? Do these really represent 'unknowns', or are they already factored in to the mtf?
anyways, I love my 16-35 but would welcome improvement. So I have followed the thread with anticipation. after 30 pages, now I really just cant wait to see some real samples from the lens... then we can get back to arguing about sample variance and how many "bad copies" exist before the date code of XXYZ
