p.22 #2 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I picked up my 16-35 mk II a few hours ago. No useful pictures yet taken for testing, but I have some preliminary information on the filter situation. I just did quite a bit of viewing through the view finder with a 5D and with a B+W 82mm Kaesemann circular polarizer. This is not a slim version, but a standard version with front threads, and it is the "Proline" style, which I think all B+W Kaesemann's are now. By moving the edge of an object into the viewfinder image at the corner of the image, and retracting slowly until it just disapears, I observed the "margin" available for this filter on the mk II lens. I tried it at both wide open and at f 22 with stop down. There looks like about 1 mm of margin that the front rim could be smaller before it would start to be seen. The 5D viewfinder is not full 100%, so that makes this filter likely "right on the edge". I will be doing some further checks with photos and better control, but if you can stand a slim version with no front threads, you should likely go for it.
Note that the main vignette problem most people talk about is caused by the cosine fall off effects of the lens, and other related issues in the internal optical design as you get near the edge of the image circle. Vignetting caused by filter or hood issues have a harder edge, and are thus easier to"see" the old fasion way. If a filter or hood is close, it can contribute some to the built in lens design vignetting, so my crude test is not definitive, but is a starting point.
I also did a little looking at the new EW-88 lens hood. The front dimensions are almost identical on this new hood compared to my old EW-83E that goes with the mk I lens. The front to back depth of the new hood is slightly less than the EW-83. When the hoods are installed on their respecitve lenses, the new mk II lens is only about 5 mm longer to the front most part of the hood, even though the mk II lens is about 9 mm longer on its own.
On the other topic of taking a brand new camera with a new design that was just realeased with the first pulbic verson of firmware on a major photo trip, yea it does sound a little dumb. I will have both a 5D and a 30D along for "backup", and I will have a few days to evaluate it on the first segment of the trip to decide if the newbie gets to go, or I take the trusty 1DmkII along on the isolated 10 part of the trip. I will also have an Epson P-5000 to help judge image quality along the way. So yes, there are risks, but I have them partly mitigated.
p.22 #6 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
For those who just want to see something, here are some night time "brick walls".
These won't be what everyone wants to see , but my first concern was corner performance at f/8. So here are some brick walls at f/8 and 16/24/35 mm vs. the 17-40. I took these with the camera tilted so as to have detail in the corners. I also took a series at the opposite angle to check the opposite corners & they were very similar.
My initial response is that the the new lens outperforms the 17-40 in the far corners at f8, especially at the widest setting. My experience with the 17-40 was the it was quite good except in some circumstances when the extreme corners were unusable.
Obviously these don't tell you about other relevant issues, such as how landscape details look in different lighting situations, or how the lens performs wide open. (some quick snaps looked just fine to me, but I am really only fussy about stopped down performance).
p.22 #8 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Okay...hopefully I didn't get people too excited....the files uploaded in an order I wasn't expecting....so they were labeled wrong. They should have correct apertures listed now.
p.22 #9 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
A couple more observations:
This lens is quite good wide open except in the corners with full frame. I have cropped to simulate 1.3 crop factor, and you will notice a little softness in your corners wide open, but not bad IMO for a wide angle. It is quite noticeable full frame, comparable I think to shooting the 35/1.4 wide or other fast wide angle wide open. Of course the 1.4 is much better in the corners by 2.8
You will wonder what we are complaining about if you have a 1.6 crop since it will already be pretty good at the corners wide open, but then you will be very well served much more cheaply by the 17-40.
Also, I took a few night shots & think this lens is slightly better than the 17-40 in terms of ghosting flar with bright lights in the picture - shooting into lights had almost no effect on either lens. Shooting into the sun is next on the agenda . . .
p.22 #11 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Tim and Neil, thank you guys!
To me it looks like a very solid performer, I guess some of us
expected the miracle, this is still a super wide zoom...
CA seems to be controlled much better, I noticed the same
with my quick PMA "test". Flare is a non-issue, at least after
what I've seen so far...
I guess I was expecting better sharpness in the corners, but
what can you do?
p.22 #12 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
These were taken quickly over lunch yesterday. All hand held.......
Impressive!
Look at the f/2.8 shot in the upper left corner. The branches are actually sharper than I would have expected for a 16mm f/2.8 shot. This lens is usable at f/2.8.
I want one - NOW!
Unfortunately canon.dk is in a coma. Their website only show the mark I version, and I don't want to import from outside the EU because of warranty issues.
p.22 #13 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Kim Bentsen wrote:
Impressive!
Look at the f/2.8 shot in the upper left corner. The branches are actually sharper than I would have expected for a 16mm f/2.8 shot. This lens is usable at f/2.8.
I want one - NOW!
Unfortunately canon.dk is in a coma. Their website only show the mark I version, and I don't want to import from outside the EU because of warranty issues.
You U.S. residents are lucky. Enjoy it!
Besides the warranty issues Canon Europe has also a cashback of 100 euro for this lens from April 1th on...
Small detail... they will have to start selling it.
p.22 #15 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
neilgundel wrote:
For those who just want to see something, here are some night time "brick walls".
Neil - thanks for posting these! Very helpful.
In addition to having better corner sharpness, the 16-35 seems to have less distortion than the 17-40. I'm happy to see this, as the distortion of the 17-40 was always an issue for me.
p.22 #19 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Harold,
Wait a minute ...
I thought that the cashback was for the mark I version, but it seems it is the mark II. Thνs means they must have stock comming soon for the mark II :-)
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM 100
I will not get the cashback. Canon is notorious for cheating. I never got the 5D cashback despite following the correct procedure.
p.22 #20 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Very nice post, Neil, Thanks!
Nice to see that the corner performance of the new lens is a substantially better, as expected. Food for thought: Looking at the 24mm shots, zoomed in to the same spot, to my eye the 17-40 seems to reveal a little more detail in the brick. Does anyone else agree with this observation? A look at the MTF's would suggest this result. Seems it's a great lens if all over sharpness is the priority, and the 17-40 may hold some advantage if center sharpness is key.
Then I'll know if the 16-35 II is a piece of junk without even testing it.