p.28 #1 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
khurram1 wrote:
The lens looks sharp from F5.6 to F11. doesn't look so good at F16
Do you know how long this site tends to have complete reviews?
I think he is working on a review now and it will be up till the lens is discontinued, or longer.
p.28 #2 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Definitely doesn't look as good as I was hoping for at f16 from those ISO charts...I can't even tell the difference between the 17-40 at f16 and 17mm and the 16-35 at f16 and 16mm...if there is a difference, it's miniscule. Even at f8 there's not much difference according to these ISO charts at 16mm vs 17mm, though you start to notice the superiority of the 16-35 in the corners as you move up to 20mm and beyond.
I'm also not at all happy with the 82mm filter thread, I can't use any of my Singh-Ray filters on it as it currently stands (though I knew this before buying it).
p.28 #3 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
cactusclay wrote:
I think he is working on a review now and it will be up till the lens is discontinued, or longer.
You can expect a full review of 16-35 Mk2 any day now - it is an L lens, he has it already and he certainly is keen to publish the review.
He also shows the reviews he has made for discontinued lenses but they are a bit difficult to find in the site. You can find them browsing via a single line topic Photography Equipment Reviews. For the 16-35 Mk1 review, scroll to the bottom of this page: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx
p.28 #4 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
hauxon wrote:
Well, Canon could produce a 17 or 18mm L prime. My 30 year old 18mm Zuiko is even smaller than my 50/1.4 and sharp edge to edge on full frame. Would of course be a little bigger with an USM motor but certainly not an impossible task.
I'm interested....how is it wide open? 3.5 is the key here, it really bothers me how camera makers think they have to compete and make every darn lens in the wide end F.95 to out do the other maker.
p.28 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I took some pictures with it quickly yesterday when I got it and was very pleased with it wide open. My tests were on a 5D at full stop increments up to f11 and it seems great. I don't care for anything above f11, wide open to 5.6 is the meat for me.Tomorrow i'll do a more scientific comparison between it, the mk1, the 17-40, and the Zeiss 21, and will post pics.
p.28 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Koivulehto wrote:
You can expect a full review of 16-35 Mk2 any day now - it is an L lens, he has it already and he certainly is keen to publish the review.
He also shows the reviews he has made for discontinued lenses but they are a bit difficult to find in the site. You can find them browsing via a single line topic Photography Equipment Reviews. For the 16-35 Mk1 review, scroll to the bottom of this page: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx
It would have been nice if he would have left the old lens on the ISO chart, so we could compare it to the new one.
p.28 #10 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I just got back my old 16-35 from Canon, had it cleaned up nice for the new owner. I did some side by side tests, very conclusive, will post pics later.
But thus far, this is what I have found:
1. Flare, the old 16-35 is prone to it but not excessively so. The new one is outstanding, takes a lot to flare it.
2. At 2.8 vignetting is actually about 1/2 stop better on the old 16-35 in the very corners at 16mm. I tried it in many circumstances and it was pretty consistent. The area that has the fall off is the same, but about 1/2 way through the darkness, it falls of quickly on the new one. But at around F 5.0 the new lens cleans up and it takes the old one till about 6.3 to be at the same place.
3. Faster than F/11, the new 16-35 shows what you are paying for. By the time you are at 2.8, the new lens is about two stops ahead of the old one at 16mm, simply crushes the old one, near or infinity focus. This effect lessens to about a 1 stop improvement at 35mm but is still there. Along with near-zero flare, the overall improvment in sharpness is the most impressive thing to me about the new 16-35-II.
4. CA is much improved on the new lens at all apertures and focal lengths. This has been one of the tough things about the old lens for me as my clients need images for large ads and even murals. I might actually be able to do ultra wide aerial work with this lens now.
Overall, the new 16-35 is very much worth it for me. I don't think we can really do too much better for the money. This is a 2.8 ultra-wide zoom, it is clearly usable at 2.8 at any zoom setting. If you are *only* concerned about blowing away the 17-40 at infinity for landscapes in which you are at F/11-F/22, keep your 17-40, this is not the lens for you and you will save nearly a grand.
p.28 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Picasso Moon wrote: . He did. It's there so you can compare to your heart's content. Look below the 100-400 in the drop-down list.
Oh, Ok I didn't see it where it was before, so I thought he took it off. Thanks
p.28 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
This is kind of a specialized question, but has anyone compared the new 16-35 to the 24L at 24/2.8? If they are comparable then I think I'd prefer the new lens to the L prime for my application (darkened landscapes/starscapes). On paper the 24L seems like the better lens for this task, but I've been pretty unimpressed with it near wide open - hence my question.
p.28 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
vachss wrote:
This is kind of a specialized question, but has anyone compared the new 16-35 to the 24L at 24/2.8? If they are comparable then I think I'd prefer the new lens to the L prime for my application (darkened landscapes/starscapes). On paper the 24L seems like the better lens for this task, but I've been pretty unimpressed with it near wide open - hence my question.
See the second post on the page previous to this. You can compare directly based on test targets at least. It looks like the 24/1.4L has an advantage in central contrast, but not all that much sharper at 2.8. The 1.4 seems to continue to hold a small edge all the way to f/8.
p.28 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
The digital pics tests show the new 16-35L to be considerably better than the old one only below about 28mm; above this it's worse. it's the same compred to the 17-40, but's the 17-40 was better than the old 16-35 at the wide end anyway.
Hopefully husband gets his soon for a full test and also Bill Castleman.
p.28 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
vachss wrote:
On paper the 24L seems like the better lens for this task, but I've been pretty unimpressed with it near wide open - hence my question.
Hmm....mine is stunning, just about on par with the 35L. But like any 1.4 wider than 35mm, it has curvature of field. So when I take care to focus right in the corner at 1.4, it is really sharp. I will never-ever sell my version of the 24L.
. He did. It's there so you can compare to your heart's content. Look below the 100-400 in the drop-down list.
