p.24 #5 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
khurram1 wrote:
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.
Really? I'm supposedly #1 on the 16-35mk2 list at the camera store but I haven't heard anything from them yet.
p.24 #6 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
while i wasn't too excited with the f2.8 16mm images i did i must say that at the higher aperture numbers this lens does work better then its previous version on FF.
first image 1/400s f/10.0 at 27.0mm iso400. i only used PTlens on it and a low sharpen wjhen reducing it to web size. note the 2 "dust bunnies" above the tree branches upper middle just right.
p.24 #9 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
The field curvature of this lens or any lens for that matter may cause a part of the softness in the corners.
The first thing I did in terms of testing this lens was to place a detailed object in the very corner of the frame then focus on it, at 16mm / 2.8.
It was really impressive for a zoom this range, very sharp.
I used the lens for about an hour while on assignment. It did really well and was pretty darn impressive wide open, the only setting on the lens tonight. So far, this lens looks to be well worth it in terms of gains for difference in price.
I can't really say when I will get to comparing the old and new versions as I am truly worn out after a week long self assignment, but we are all curious so it will happen.
Jut get out and use the lens for photos instead of tests, it has a good amount of improvements for only a few extra buck.
Underwhelmed?
Nope! It's still a zoom, I think it is stellar for an ultra wide zoom.
p.24 #11 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Thanks Neil! Those last two just sold me this lens.
There is no real question even here, Canon doesn't have
anything else.... But those two shots are great.
Does soembody know where I can get it for less than $1500?
p.24 #12 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I think I'll stick to my 17-40L//4 for awhile longer. It's hard for me to justify that expense when the samples so far are good (really good) stopped down. Of course it's difficult to build a sharp corner to corner wa optic, but when you've got a good 17-40L copy, it's hard to justify the extra $1000 for the f/2.8. I originally owned the 16-35L mkI for f/2.8 needed events. Perhaps some sharp real world indoor shots (f/2.8) will prove me wrong.
Please keep the shots coming. I really appreciate everyone's efforts.
p.24 #13 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Neil.. I have looked at most of your images. I think the performance in the wide range (e.g. 16-24mm) is pretty decent. I was less impressed with the performance at the 35mm shown in your brick wall tests. Mark
p.24 #14 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Here are some outdoor shots at 2.8. They are sort of "worst case" because the upper corners have backlit twigs & tree tops, and the lighting is not very nice. Notice the detail in the central 80% region:
p.24 #15 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Thanks, Neil, and everybody that has posted images. This new 16-35 shows some good promise. In terms of full-frame corner sharpness, this lens appears to perform as well at f/2.8 as the Mk I does at f/4 or slower. CA is better-controlled, and there's no doubt that the new version does better across the frame at f/8.
p.24 #16 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Personally I think it IS worthwhile to compare a given zoom lens resolution to the corresponding prime resolution. For example, the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS zoom lens is simply amazing in how good the resolution remains at all focal lengths compared to primes. Knowing that, I would buy the zoom, because I don't give up very much at all. If I see a particular zoom makes too much sacrifice in sharpness for the sake of an extended zoom range I'll avoid it like the plague, and just stick with primes in that range. Unless you compare specific lenses at specific focal lengths, you can't make a realistic decision. Sure, as a rule, primes are better, but sometimes they are not enough better to put up with the inconvenience of lens changing. Generalizing is fine, until you get down to your own buying decision between two lenses, then you start weighing the pros and cons of the two, including resolution differences.
Edited by topspringer on Apr 01, 2007 at 10:52 AM GMT
Notice the big flare mark to the right of the image. Shot was with a 5D at 20 mm, f/6.3. A rather poor setup for this image, but I wanted a quick picture of the house to show folks.
p.24 #19 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Thanks, John. Just moved in 2 months ago!
Still unpacking!
It would look a good deal better if I'd not gotten lazy with the lens hood, and if I'd gotten the shot in the morning when the sun was closer to my back.
