p.26 #1 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I wouldn't use any Canon lens extensively at f/22. Out of curiosity, what subjects are you shooting that you need f/22? Sounds like you need a 24 TSE.
I've always wished Canon would release something like the Leica Tri-Elmar's. An 18-21-24-28 f/4 would be great for me. It seems like they could really dial the lens in with the fixed positions.
p.26 #2 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Film_Ruled wrote:
Well, a comparison with the zeiss 17-35/2.8 N + conurus conversion will confirm/deny that statement. . . . hopefully we'll see one soon here . . . http://16-9.net/lens_tests/index.html
p.26 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
anyone else get a 16-35L II from a canadian store other then the Camera Store yet I'm on the waiting list at Vistek, but they still haven't received anyting. Just wondering if Canon has started shipping to any other retailers yet.
p.26 #7 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
EB-1 wrote:
Diffraction of the 16-35 II is noticeable at f/22 on the 1Ds MK II. Perhaps it is not quite as bad on the 5D, but I would not use it at f/22 under normal conditions.
EB
Diffraction is exactly the same for the 1D II and 5D; it's the pixel size that's important and they are the same.
p.26 #8 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
neilgundel wrote:
I agree with everyone Personally, I think Canon should come out with a 16-24 f/4 selling for $3500 if necessary that is pixel-perfect in the corners by f/8 - I would buy one, and I think Canon would benefit significantly from the "image" of producing such a lens even if it didn't make money directly. Nevertheless I am not at all unhappy with this lens.
Also, keep in mind that I have deliberately put very fine detail in the corners that I already knew to be challenging for most lenses, and posted unsharpened 16.7 megapixel jpgs (although the two city shots [ . . . and the ones at f2.8 as well] had normal sharpening), from a camera known to require sharpening. Just to keep things in perspective. ...Show more →
Why go so wide; it's dam tough to make the lens as good as people want this wide. I'd rather they released a 20-35 f/3.5L that was specifically designed for the landscape brigade. Whatever it takes to get 35L performance across the frame.
If they can't do it in a zoom then a single prime say a 20 f/2.0L that could duke it out with the Zeiss 21. For the zoom or prime if it was as good as we want, I'd pay $2K+
p.26 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Film_Ruled wrote:
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.
It still amazes me how much people expect from UWA zooms; people complain the 16-35 or 17-40 is softer than their 24-70 or their 70-200 let alone primes like the 35L. Get real, it's not going to happen at least not at a cost 99.9999% could afford.
There are lenses out there that do what people want, but as they say you get what you pay for. If Canon had made the 16-35L II even better how many threads would we have then complaining how they couldn't afford a $2500 zoom and Canon were rip-off merchants. Just like there are no fast cheap high quality superteles, there are no fast cheap high quality UWA zooms.
Edited by Pixel Perfect on Apr 05, 2007 at 08:38 AM GMT
p.26 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
true, its all about cost, canon could make a 16-35mm that is tack sharp across the board, but the cost that they would have to charge the customers would make it non-profitable for canon, the technology is here to make razor sharp across the board uwa lenses, its the cost that keeps them from being mass produced.
But that said, we all wish for an affordable uwa with decent edge detail with these newer and higher res FF's
Edited by tom mcconville on Apr 04, 2007 at 09:13 PM GMT
p.26 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
tom mcconville wrote:
true, its all about cost, canon could make a 16-35mm that is tack sharp across the board, but the cost that they would have to charge the customers would make it non-profitable for canon, the technology is here to make razor sharp across the board uwa lenses, its the cost that keeps them from being mass produced
A lens like that would have a 95mm filter size, wiegh at least 2.5 pounds and be in excess of $5,000.
Let's look at some examples:
Nikon or Canon's 28mm 2.0 and 28mm 1.8 lenses are about $300-$450 each. The Canon one stinks and the pretty good Nikon one is no longer made. But even the latter one was not great in the corners wide open.
The Leica M 28mm Summicron is spectacular wide open, even in the very corners, it is $3,200, I own it.
Nikon or Canon's 14mm 2.8 lenses are only fair wide open, the Nikon being the worst on FF, but at $1,800 and $1,400 respectively, they are still expensive, and they are not even as good as the 16mm end of the new 16-35!!
But my $3,000 Hasselblad Xpan 30mm 5.6 aspheric ( equal to 17mm in 24x65 ) *is* fantastic wide open right to the corners.
I am afraid that with the internet hype age, we have a LOT of misinformation and unrealistic expectations from all the weekend landscape shooters.
This is a 2.8 zoom folks, you can't seriously expect it to be as good as a $3,000 prime wide open.
Most really good pro landscape shooters I know shoot with lenses that are equal to 24mm-50mm in the 35mm format with the occasional venture to around 20mm. They are also shooting lenses with maximum apertures of around 5.6 since they are Schnieder glass on a Fotoman, Linhoff, Wista or even great Fuji EBC on the G 6x17 series.
There are limits people, and when you are dealing with a mass production giant like Canon, it is pretty amazing they are able to stretch the limits of the optics like they do already.
p.26 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
There are definitely compromises with the wideangle zooms for SLRs, and Canon found a a good one in this case. Of course most people would like it to be a bit better, but what improvement would there be at even double the cost? When the price goes up, sales go down and the remaining buyers have to pay for the R&D.
BTW, the Leica 28 and X-Pan 30 are not retrofocus lenses, are they?
p.26 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
All of this is true, but if Canon wants the 1DsII owners to lust after the next version, the increased pixel count won't be usable when shooting wider than 50mm. If they want to overcome that issue, they will have to do something and this lens certainly helps. That's why I think a statement wide angle lens would make sense even if very few buyers pony up for it - it gives them a reason to buy into the system. Besides, why should Canon take a back seat to Zeiss and Leica when they are already in the same ballpark at 50mm and above? I'm not sure they aren't the absolute best at primes of 135mm and beyond.
I understand of course that wide angles for the Leica have a big technical advantage because there is no mirror clearance to design around.
p.26 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
neilgundel wrote:
All of this is true, but if Canon wants the 1DsII owners to lust after the next version, the increased pixel count won't be usable when shooting wider than 50mm. If they want to overcome that issue, they will have to do something and this lens certainly helps. That's why I think a statement wide angle lens would make sense even if very few buyers pony up for it - it gives them a reason to buy into the system. Besides, why should Canon take a back seat to Zeiss and Leica when they are already in the same ballpark at 50mm and above? I'm not sure they aren't the absolute best at primes of 135mm and beyond.
I understand of course that wide angles for the Leica have a big technical advantage because there is no mirror clearance to design around. ...Show more →
I'm waiting for my 16-35L II to come in. But if canon ever built a decent prime in the 18-20 mm range I would pick it up in a second. I really don't know why they haven't built an L len prime in that range. I'm not even concerned it being overly fast - 2.8 or 3.5 would do fine for me, as I would do most of my shooting in the F8-F16 range anyway. So speed is really not an issue for me - It just needs to be sharp.
p.26 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Khurram,
The 16-35mm MkII is a stellar performer at f/8 on a FF camera that will perform really, really well on a 1.3X body you have. I know you will be happy with it, you may not consider getting any prime in that range anymore .
p.26 #20 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
Khurram,
The 16-35mm MkII is a stellar performer at f/8 on a FF camera that will perform really, really well on a 1.3X body you have. I know you will be happy with it, you may not consider getting any prime in that range anymore .
I'm hoping it will be a big improvement over the original. I'm also be good stopped down to F16 as well.
i just picked up the 5D a couple of days ago and hope that it will be good on the full frame as well. Do you notice any vignetting at all with your 1DsII
I'm on the waiting list at Vistek, but they still haven't received anyting. Just wondering if Canon has started shipping to any other retailers yet.
Personally, I think Canon should come out with a 16-24 f/4 selling for $3500 if necessary that is pixel-perfect in the corners by f/8 - I would buy one, and I think Canon would benefit significantly from the "image" of producing such a lens even if it didn't make money directly. Nevertheless I am not at all unhappy with this lens. 
.