p.23 #1 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
TIm.. I have a couple of questions. What was the focus point --- the trees in the back area? Was it the same for each shot? Were these taken as jpg or RAW and then converted. If so, how much sharpening was applied. thanks mark
p.23 #2 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I was using center focus point, so yes, it should be the trees in the background. It should have been the same for each shot as I tried to stay pretty steady with the camera. They were shot raw, processed in Capture One, standard sharpening (34). The sky was a little blown out, so I brought down the exposure. I hadn't intended on posting these since they were quick and dirty shots. But people seemed to want to see something and I don't have time at the moment to do better.
p.23 #4 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I'm not trying to turn this into a prime vs. zoom debate, but WA zooms have alot of things that deter them, like greater distortion, less MTF rankings, and corner performance. I've been watching this thread, and if the 16-35 Mk II proves usable at f4, and has good sharpness by f11, then I will strongly consider it, but I'm just not seeing what I want to out of it.
p.23 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Distortion seems to be very nicely controlled. All the lines are straight. Anyone see a difference with distortion? The Mark 1 drove me nuts with this.
p.23 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
EB-1 wrote:
Is anyone else underwhelmed so far? I guess the acid test is a direct comparison between the version I and II.
EB
I have been impressed with that lens so far. I would say between 1 to 2 stops corner improvements over the older counterpart. Shots taken at f/2.8 with the new lens matches that of f/4.0, taken at f/5.6 matches that f/11.0 of the MkI, respectively. It seems the sweet range of apertures starts at f/5.6 and f/8.0. Beyond f/11.0 the IQ start to get closer again but overall still ahead. Definitely, it shows less flare than the Mark I and somehow the overall image seems to be sharper and more pleasing. Am I biased ? Evaluating a wide angle lens, an UWA at that, is more difficult; tough to locate objects around the house. Yes, barrel distortion is there at the widest setting but not that bad. From the very limited shots, I am pleased with the results.
p.23 #7 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I will be happy if it performs no worse in the center from f/8-11 and the corners are a little better, especially in the red channel. If it is no better at f/11 in the corners, then perhaps I made a mistake. It would be nice to shoot at wider apertures sonmetimes though.
p.23 #8 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
EB-1 wrote:
I will be happy if it performs no worse in the center from f/8-11 and the corners are a little better, especially in the red channel. If it is no better at f/11 in the corners, then perhaps I made a mistake. It would be nice to shoot at wider apertures sonmetimes though.
So you are not selling the CZ21 I take it?
EB
EB, at f/11.0 the difference is definitely less noticeable. I viewed both shots taken at that aperture back and forth many times and yes, the MkII edges the MkI by a tiny bit. Keep in mind though that my MkI was fine-tuned by Canon recently and it performs like a champ. My comparison of the two lenses was done at 16mm setting, the weakest setting that the MkI shows from my experience and I assume the MkII does the same. As you can tell, I didn't do an exhaustive test and didn't even use the word test but more evaluation and comparison, etc.
No, I am not selling the CZ 21 since I am emotionally attached to it. Let me tell you though, Canon is narrowing the gap with the MkII, for sure. Oh, BTW, I am selling my MkI though .
p.23 #9 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I had 3 MKI and the one i kept was a good performer at 16-24mm and 24-35 was less optimal (e.g. compared to the 24-105 or 24-70). In my experience, the variation in performance of the MK I was either it did better at the 16-24 or 24-35mm end. Mark AGeoJO wrote:
EB, at f/11.0 the difference is definitely less noticeable. I viewed both shots taken at that aperture back and forth many times and yes, the MkII edges the MkI by a tiny bit. Keep in mind though that my MkI was fine-tuned by Canon recently and it performs like a champ. My comparison of the two lenses was done at 16mm setting, the weakest setting that the MkI shows from my experience and I assume the MkII does the same. As you can tell, I didn't do an exhaustive test and didn't even use the word test but more evaluationand comparison, etc.
No, I am not selling the CZ 21 since I am emotionally attached to it. Let me tell you though, Canon is narrowing the gap with the MkII, for sure. Oh, BTW, I am selling my MkI though .
p.23 #10 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
BTW i think it is unrealistic to see a super wide zoom that is a great performer at wide apertures. Truthfully, I would like to see better full frame optics and a min aperature of 4 or 5.6. It is uncommon for me to use a wide angle lens at f2.8. I do admi though that the CZ21mm is great wide open-- corner to corner
p.23 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Mark,
I have the impression that this MarkII lens is geared really towards the 1D MarkIII. On the 1.3 crop, it would be great corner to corner at wide open aperture. The MarkI lens is great more for the 1.6 crop at wide open aperture. I am not sure whether this comparison is fair or not and I hope Canon is not abandoning the FF line of cameraa......
p.23 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
mark1958 wrote:
BTW i think it is unrealistic to see a super wide zoom that is a great performer at wide apertures. Truthfully, I would like to see better full frame optics and a min aperature of 4 or 5.6. It is uncommon for me to use a wide angle lens at f2.8. I do admi though that the CZ21mm is great wide open-- corner to corner
I'm not overly concerned with performance wide open. If the lens is considerably better between F5.6 to F16 I will be more then satisfied.
p.23 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I have been thinking about the method of evaluation I did on the new lens. I took several shots outdoor and some indoors. I relied more on my indoor shots to render my opinion above. I am not saying the method is flawed but it has to do with the ultra wide angle nature of this zoom lens at 16mm. Anyway, I used my book case for my indoor shots at about 3- 4 feet. I tried my best to lineup the camera as parallel to the book case as possible. As I mentioned above, the very corners are somewhat soft at f/2.8, better at f/4.0 and at f/5.6, the corners are just fine. I was wondering how much of the corner softness at the wider openings is the result of the fact that the corners are further away than the center part from the lens itself. At that short of a distance the DOF is relatively narrow. The field curvature of this lens or any lens for that matter may cause a part of the softness in the corners. Granted better corrected lenses exhibit less curvature of field, I have no means of evaluating the field curvature. Although I noticed a fairly significant improvement over the MarkI but evaluating an ultra wide angle lens or a zoom lens that covers ultra wide angle ranges, is not like a walk in the park. I will defer that task to the experts. I think it is time right now to go out and take real life pictures using this lens....
p.23 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
mark1958 wrote:
BTW i think it is unrealistic to see a super wide zoom that is a great performer at wide apertures. Truthfully, I would like to see better full frame optics and a min aperature of 4 or 5.6. It is uncommon for me to use a wide angle lens at f2.8. I do admi though that the CZ21mm is great wide open-- corner to corner
I doubt that Canon will introduce any more prime super wide lenses, but an 18/2.8 would be nice. I don't have a since CZ21 it is not wide enough sometimes, and the mirror clearance of the Leica 19mm put me off.
p.23 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Hmm, from the pictures that I see so far it doesn't strike me that it's much better at f4 than the 17-40 (wide end). If that's the case I am not sure I want one; I have a 24L if I need a fast wide. I guess I'll have to form my own opinion when it arrives next week
Here are some detail shots, and I think the 16-35 II clearly outperformed the 17-40 at all focal lengths, and was very close to the 24-70 at 24 and 35mm:
These are all 100% 1DsII jpg's where I cropped only the top left 1/4 of the frame to save bandwidth, all at f/8:
p.23 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Everything except the shots in the "Misc" folder were shot on a tripod. All shot raw with a 5D, processed through Capture One with sharpening set to standard (34) using Magne profiles. There were no filters and I didn't use the lens shade.
p.23 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Does anyone know if this lens is available anywhere other then The Camera Store in Canada. I heard the Camera Store got 10 lenses in on Thursday. I'm on the waiting list at Vistek and they were still saying end of April.
? Evaluating a wide angle lens, an UWA at that, is more difficult; tough to locate objects around the house. Yes, barrel distortion is there at the widest setting but not that bad. From the very limited shots, I am pleased with the results. 