p.13 #1 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
The wide-angle lenses from Zeiss including the legendary Distagon 21/2.8 were all made in Japan. True, it would not be fair to compare Canon to Leica - as their lenses cost about twice as much - but not so with Zeiss glass which is no more expensive than Canon's L lenses.
It's also true that the newer lenses from Canon are remarkably sharp e.g. 24-105L (even though it vignettes and distorts badly at the wide end) and 70-200/4L IS - which is said to be even sharper than the 135L at f5.6 and f8. I was also extremely impressed by the sharpness of the 85/1.2L II ..... at f1.2!
There is still some hope for us!
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.
p.13 #2 · '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.
I say have some hope. An f/2.8 UWA-WA 2.2x zoom shouldn't be as difficult to design as a 35/1.4.
And I never expected it to be near as good as the Leica or Zeiss...just better than the old version that I thought was unacceptable for the price point. Besides, if it was that good, I'd expect a price tag to match it...and none of us want *that*.
p.13 #3 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"Thomas, any thoughts?"
Prime Vs Zoom? Ya can't argue with the inmates cause that's why they're the inmates.
As you pointed out, I like AF. I also like the auto stop-down feature that comes with the EOS/EF system.. I like the zoom feature of a 16-35L and color me stupidly dense, but nobody has successfully explained to me as to how a prime compares to a zoom, when you want/need a zoom.
Explain to me again why this uber cool prime is so much better than the zoom in question when I'm all about perspective and you can't frame with a prime, without changing perspective.
To me, it's like explaining to a jumper, why the chute they're using is so cool, when on the way down, the stupid thing won't open.
p.13 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
gearhead5 wrote:
No, probably because the 16-35 II hasn't been released yet
Wow. 31 pages of discussion on a lens that no one has yet had their hands on? How about a comparison of their respective MTF charts, then. By my untrainned eye, even thaking into consideration the "sweet spot" of the 16-35mm lens on a smaller than 35mm sensor, the 17-55 2.8 still seems better. And, it gives you some extra reach at minimal loss on the wide side. Granted, I'm sure it is not as well built as the L, but then again, isn't it ultimately about the pictures? Am I interpretting these charts correctly?
p.13 #7 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Georgemd wrote:
Wow. 31 pages of discussion on a lens that no one has yet had their hands on?
hilarious
How about a comparison of their respective MTF charts, then.
someone did compare MTFs somewhere between the first page and this one. i just don't have the time right now to hunt it down. but, it's there and the mark II is markedly better.
p.13 #8 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
The 17-55 would kick butt based on the MTFs and experience. That's another reason to ignore the 16-35 MkI on a crop camera fan-base. To me, the only weakness of the 17-55 is flare resistance or moderate lack thereof.
p.13 #10 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
My take on the MTF charts was that for a wide open lens (at F2.8) there was little difference. The improvement is at the edges at F8. The MKII is made for full frame and must give up some design equity for that purpose. But when you cut off the edges with a crop sensor the FF (F2.8) fuzzy edges are not recorded. So it doesn't appear that the MKII has much to offer for fast F stops on FF or crop sensors bodies-especially at the price.
p.13 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
SoundHound wrote:
So it doesn't appear that the MKII has much to offer for fast F stops on FF or crop sensors bodies-especially at the price.
It will be interesting to see how the market for used MK-1 lenses reflects the as-of-yet-unseen improvements in quality. I know of two MK-1 lenses on the B&S forum here now and both don't appear to be going anywhere anytime soon. I think they are both asking about $1050 now. That's a big discount considering that the MK-1 lens (still) sells new for about $1400.
If the improvements are minor or can't be at all appreciated by crop cameras, then the MK-1 price shouldn't fall too far beyond what a used lens would go for.
p.13 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
SoundHound wrote:
My take on the MTF charts was that for a wide open lens (at F2.8) there was little difference. The improvement is at the edges at F8. The MKII is made for full frame and must give up some design equity for that purpose. But when you cut off the edges with a crop sensor the FF (F2.8) fuzzy edges are not recorded. So it doesn't appear that the MKII has much to offer for fast F stops on FF or crop sensors bodies-especially at the price.
There will be significant improvement wide open for *all* formats. Did you see my comparison/overlay on page 23?
p.13 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
If I want to buy a 16-35 I will definitely go for the mk2. The future of DSLR photography is full frame and I wouldn´t be sorry with a mk1 in a few years.
p.13 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
So here's my dilemma right now. I'm considering saying screw it to the 16-35 2 (unless is really does turn out to be amazing) for the 14mm 2.8L. Even with the 16-35 1, I wish it could have gone wider, and I didn't feel the 16-24mm (I use my 24-70 for anything above 24) wasn't worth $1400, let alone $1600 for the mark 2. However, with the 14, I obviously can't do a zoom, which I would occasionally need in that focal length. Also, from what I've seen, the 14mm has much less distortion, if any, compared to the 16-35.
So what to do? In an ideal world, I'd have both, but the world is not ideal. The 14mm seems like an optically great performer to f/8-11, but with 14mm, you don't need to go beyond that. I just feel like I'd be getting the 16-35 and still want to go to 14.
p.13 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Okay...figured out that's the 17-40 wide MTF...
So for the 17-40 owners looking to upgrade, this is my general analysis on the wide end:
Good news:
Should perform a bit better at f/2.8 than the 17-40 at f4. One more stop with basically no 'penalties'. Includes being a little better in the corners and should be less CA. Excellent sharpness wide open in the very center (like the 24-105 at f/4).
1.3x corners and FF corners and edges will be much better stopped down. Corner contrast, sharpness, and CA will be noticably better.
Bad news:
Less contrast and sharpness stopped down for all formats in most of the center. Will probably be noticable in direct comparisons.
p.13 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
David, the 14/2.8L may be a rectilinear lens, so you won't see much distortion, but I believe the lens is quite soft wide open and at the corners. Check out the FM user reviews - it's got the lowest rating of all L lenses. This lens is over-priced and the IQ is well below the 24L and 35L. For the price of this lens, I think you will be much better off with the 16-35L II.
cineski wrote:
So here's my dilemma right now. I'm considering saying screw it to the 16-35 2 (unless is really does turn out to be amazing) for the 14mm 2.8L. Even with the 16-35 1, I wish it could have gone wider, and I didn't feel the 16-24mm (I use my 24-70 for anything above 24) wasn't worth $1400, let alone $1600 for the mark 2. However, with the 14, I obviously can't do a zoom, which I would occasionally need in that focal length. Also, from what I've seen, the 14mm has much less distortion, if any, compared to the 16-35.
So what to do? In an ideal world, I'd have both, but the world is not ideal. The 14mm seems like an optically great performer to f/8-11, but with 14mm, you don't need to go beyond that. I just feel like I'd be getting the 16-35 and still want to go to 14....Show more →
Edited by bobbytan on Mar 07, 2007 at 05:48 PM GMT
p.13 #20 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"I just feel like I'd be getting the 16-35 and still want to go to 14."
My WA kit consists of four lenses: Tamron 14/2.8 (sharper then the Canon 14L), 16-35L (I don't count the Canon 20/2.8 even though I have one.), 35L and 28-70L.
The point of my above, if you need the 14/2.8, allow me to encourage getting it but so you don't waste your green, only "IF" you're going be using it.
Ya can't argue with the inmates cause that's why they're the inmates. 
