I'm looking at it from the view point that this is Canon's latest and greatest offering in this class of lenses so it should have something more to it than just a better, for Canon, price point; hence what I mean by new Vs old.
gearhead5 wrote:
If I were using zooms as primes - at a single focal length - I would be using primes.
To be clear, I use both and will continue to do so until somebody makes an excellent UWA rectilinear prime (8 to 10mm EF-S and 12 to 16mm FF) I already use primes for anything longer than that 18mm and up.
"...So for *me* it really *is* legitimate to compare zooms to primes."
Science isn't a subjective discipline as it has rules which intentionally hold standards close to the vest; immutably, for consistency's sake across the board; repeatability. And even though one uses a zoom, locked into a single focal length during usage, doesn't make it a prime, so any comparison, even if for selective reasoning, is personally subjective (convenient) at best; therefore invalid for both you and the rest of the world where we all live, even though for you, for your purposes, find it conveniently valid.
A zoom's a zoom, made to a zoom's weaknesses and a prime's a prime, made to a prime's strengths so comparing the strong to the weak is..... well,.... so as to not be polemic, unreasonable at best.
I do understand what you're sharing as to what your commenting on as to the personal nature of your usage (gotta go with what's there, even if less than ideal) but all that's being done is using a zoom locked into the extreme of it's FL, exploiting the available WA nature of the zoom and then seemingly being comparatively unhappy with image quality because it's not a prime; can't have it both ways. It's what it is when it was made (under the restrictions set down at the time of design and manufacturing) and this fact will never change, no matter whose using it or how it's being used.
You can't compare primes to zooms, strong to the weak and be considered fair minded but you can compare zoom quality to primes because now you're comparing the weak to the strong.
"Look how strong that sixteen year old is, he's almost as strong as his old man!" That's valid. "Look at how strong that fifty-five year old dude is; his eighteen year old son can kick his butt!" That's just a shameful fact. And if the character, Rocky Balboa had gone after weak little old men, it wouldn't have made for a decent story line and Rocky would have been called a bully.
People aren't trying to bully people with their CZ21 are they?
For me, I love the 21mm focal length. It's wide with out being too wide. A zoom would be nice for certain occasions, but 90% of the time I would use it close to the 20-22mm mark.
I am not so surprised to see this lens. We have heard many complaint about corner shapness of this lens on FF. I shoot with a 20D so I'm fine but using a 5D over a weekend a couple of months back it became very apparent that this lens lacks the edge to edge sharpness that you would expect from a lens at this price point. Time will tell if this is the solution. It is ofcourse totally uncool that my 16-35 now no longer is the coolest wide zoom around.
I find it interesting how similar mark I and II look at a distance, but the specs are very different, and when you compare the two side by side, it seems that they have no parts in common.
It is almost as if Canon wants to make this upgrade without to much noise, and then keep a lid on why this upgrade was needed in the first place. Mark I was only released a few years ago.
I am getting one for sure.
Edited by Kim Bentsen on Feb 23, 2007 at 09:56 PM GMT (Reason: typos)
Edited by Kim Bentsen on Feb 23, 2007 at 10:11 PM GMT (Reason: typo)
p.3 #10 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
nicklamor wrote:
Unfortunately, there's no Canon Worldwide warranty, and you should know that any canon lens purchased outside EU won't be repaired for free in the E.U by any Canon Service during the warranty period. You have to send it back to the store where you purchased it, not convenient at all..
Well Canon Australia honors international warranty. I purchased a 600F4 IS from B&H and the USM motor was faulty on arrival. Canon Australia replaced the USM motor for no charge
p.3 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Wow, we've been looking into the muddy pool of "zoom vs prime" and along comes BeeMan and with a single stroke clears the water. Thank you BeeMan for seeing that a spade is truly a spade and most ducks really are ducks.
p.3 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Koivulehto wrote:
Well, the papers I have for all my lenses don't say world wide warranty. Instead, they say Canon International Warranty. The US vendors claim that they are warrantied abroad, and the word "international" seems to hint so. The same companies sell Canon lenses ca. $50 cheaper as well, but then they admit you have to send them back to their store if you need the warranty.
I don't really know what is true here since I haven't ever needed any Canon warranty.
For camera bodies and flashes I agree - they have only national Canon warranties.
Actually, at least in Europe you have continental warranty on Canon camera bodies and accessories. You might get a national printed manual with the product though.
All Canon lenses bought outside the US have world wide (international) warranty.
p.3 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
BeeMan458 wrote:
"...So for *me* it really *is* legitimate to compare zooms to primes."
Science isn't a subjective discipline as it has rules which intentionally hold standards close to the vest; immutably, for consistency's sake across the board; repeatability. And even though one uses a zoom, locked into a single focal length during usage, doesn't make it a prime, so any comparison, even if for selective reasoning, is personally subjective (convenient) at best; therefore invalid for both you and the rest of the world where we all live, even though for you, for your purposes, find it conveniently valid.
A zoom's a zoom, made to a zoom's weaknesses and a prime's a prime, made to a prime's strengths so comparing the strong to the weak is..... well,.... so as to not be polemic, unreasonable at best.
I do understand what you're sharing as to what your commenting on as to the personal nature of your usage (gotta go with what's there, even if less than ideal) but all that's being done is using a zoom locked into the extreme of it's FL, exploiting the available WA nature of the zoom and then seemingly being comparatively unhappy with image quality because it's not a prime; can't have it both ways. It's what it is when it was made (under the restrictions set down at the time of design and manufacturing) and this fact will never change, no matter whose using it or how it's being used.
You can't compare primes to zooms, strong to the weak and be considered fair minded but you can compare zoom quality to primes because now you're comparing the weak to the strong.
People aren't trying to bully people with their CZ21 are they? ...Show more →
. I use a Leica 19 to bully people
About the 'strong vs. weak' argument. I don't think it applies. Sometimes the zoom is stronger. Is that still not a valid comparison? For example, my 24-70 beat some of my consumer primes, 28/2.8, 35/2 and for some aspects the 24/2.8. My feeling is that if you can take a picture at the same FOV and aperture/effective aperture or DOF, then lenses and systems can be compared. What's so complicated about that?
p.3 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"I don't think it applies."
Now you're nitting.
Of course there are quality levels of primes Vs zooms (consumber Vs L Vs exotics) and this is a well known and discussed point but in this case, you're running two lenses, TopDogs of their class, where strengths and weaknesses "do" apply and will give one an "unfair" advantage over the other so "yes" the fact you're comparing "this" prime to "that" zoom, makes a difference and does apply.
Now it's been mentioned, comparing the CZ 17-35 against the Canon 16-35 II; now you have a fair comparison as to who's the class of the field.
What I don't understand, and my singular point was, why is it when somebody says anything good about the 16-35, somebody feels obligated to trot out the CZ21 comment, as if it's a valid comment when the comment in regard to the CZ21 is specious at best and completely irrelevant in the least.
"My feeling is that if you can take a picture at the same FOV and aperture/effective aperture or DOF, then lenses and systems can be compared."
If someone hangs out at 21mm and need edge-to-edge, for what ever reasoning, then the CZ21 is an appropriate topic of conversation but if someone wants a zoom, bringing up a prime as if somehow it's a valid point, is convenient in nature and adds nothing to the conversation other than to say, "At 21mm's, the CZ21 is da bomb and whips your DA 16-35L." Of course, nobody's going argue, But what's that have to do with the merits and weaknesses of engineering a UWA zoom or responding, "CZ21" every time somebody asks about a 16-35?
"Depends on who you ask!!"
Wadda they know?
I'll give it the simple try:
What's the absolute best "zoom" in the 15-50mm range, any make, any body?
As to an answer, would mentioning "any" prime be considered a reasonable OT reply to the above question? Maybe someone can explain to me how a prime can zoom, when you can't move your feet, you don't want perspective to change and you don't want to crop the file (fewer pixels) in Photoshop.
p.3 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
so I wonder how long we have to wait to find out the MSRP
im shocked how much bigger the markII is.... wonder why they even call it a markII.. looks like a totally new design
Hopefully can still use my expensive 77mm polarizer with a step up ring, would hate to have to buy an 82mm version of that (well.. at least i wonder if you could get away with it on a 1.3 crop body). ok ok.. ill buy a new polarizer too...
And if the character, Rocky Balboa had gone after weak little old men, it wouldn't have made for a decent story line and Rocky would have been called a bully.
. I use a Leica 19 to bully people 