p.29 #3 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
EB-1 wrote:
There are not enough for you yet?
EB
, kind of what I was thinking..
No matter what the reviewers say, at this point, I have all the information I need, I am keeping the lens, it is well worth the extra $230 over the old one.
p.29 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
This might be a silly question to ask, but has anyone done a comparison of this lens versus a Canon 10-22mm on a crop body? I'd love to see what the two lenses look like at 10/16mm at around f8 or f11. Will the 16-35 blow the 10-22mm away, or will it be a close match? Can anyone take up this challenge?
p.29 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Well, I have a cold and we're having crappy weather (cold and flurries) for this time of the year. Here are some low light samples, you can see the EXIF by clicking on the link at the bottom of the images. The "original" link is a full size JPEG. These were shot in RAW, processed through Capture One, standard sharpening (34), Magne profiles. This is an antique auto museum near where I live....most of the place is really dark. These are all handheld using available light. Most are pretty high ISO, and also shot pretty wide open. Anywhere from f2.8 to maybe f8 (mostly f2.8 to f5.6 I think.)
p.29 #8 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Thanks, the more I use this lens, the more I like it. I know people were hoping for perfection, but I definitely think it's nice step up from the MK I I had. I tended to shy away from that lens unless I really needed wide. Most of the time I'd stick with my 24-70 and was too lazy to switch to the 16-35. I think it's going to be the other way around for a while. :-)
p.29 #9 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
To be honest, I have compared mine to the my USM 1 lens. My USM 1 lens is really great at the wide end. The newer one is slightly better at the corners and it is better in regards to CA and flare but not as impressive overall as I had hoped. Mark
p.29 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet but one other nice thing about the new 16-35 is that, like the 24-70L when zoomed to the wide end, the front element is at the farthest point out. When zoomed to 35mm, the front element is retracted backwards and improves the effectiveness of the hood.
p.29 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
That is a good observation about the zoom and the hood effectiveness. The new 16-35 design is improved in that department over the old, but it looks like the maximum retraction occurs at about 28 mm, and then the front element comes forward a little for the 35 mm setting. Still much better than the old lens design, which was all the way forward again by 35 mm.
p.29 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
This is an understatement. I personally think most of the older 16-35L copies are bad - they are soft and they under-expose for some peculiar reason. The later versions are better, so I ended up buying a new one 2 years ago ..... but didn't think it was any better than the 17-40L that I had for the longest time, so I replaced it with the 17-40L.
tsdevine wrote:
I've heard there's a lot of variation in quality of the MK I...you may have gotten one that was better than average.
p.29 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
tsdevine wrote:
Thanks, the more I use this lens, the more I like it. I know people were hoping for perfection, but I definitely think it's nice step up from the MK I I had.
Having tried 4 different 20 mm primes from 3 manufacturers, and a nice 17-40L, I'm convinced that perfection is not possible in an ultra-wide lens. My "Mk I" 16-35 is the best among them though that 17-40 was no slouch.
I tended to shy away from that lens unless I really needed wide. Most of the time I'd stick with my 24-70 and was too lazy to switch to the 16-35. I think it's going to be the other way around for a while. :-)
-Tim
I'm with you - I use the 16-35 when I need 16-20 mm, but generally, my 24-70 is my lens of choice on the 5D. It's a gem! That could change soon, though.....
p.29 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
mark1958 wrote:
To be honest, I have compared mine to the my USM 1 lens. My USM 1 lens is really great at the wide end. The newer one is slightly better at the corners and it is better in regards to CA and flare but not as impressive overall as I had hoped. Mark
Interesting. For a pro like me who pushes the limits, every bit helps. It takes my version 1 two full stops to equal the sharpness of my version two at 16mm. I think it is really interesting how the opinions of working pros and hobby types with thousands in gear differ.
p.29 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Perhaps this is a foolish question, but I am serious. Do you working pros buy three copies and pick the best one like the rest of us, or do you get lucky each time? The unit to unit variations can drive one bonkers.
p.29 #20 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
At the wide end, at f2.8-4, the version II is clearly much hugely better at the edges and corners, but at f8, the version I is actually sharper at the edges although at the extreme corners the version II is alittle better. This is if you are talking about sharpness. The center sharpness is a tad better on the version II and the CA and fringing is much better on the version II. My version II is quite decent at 24 to 35mm and better than my version I. The issue for me is that I really want this lens for the 16 to 24mm range. I went through 3 version I lenses before i found one that was satisfactory, so perhaps I got a good version I lens. I compared shots on the 5D and 1Dsmk2 and got similar outcomes. Mark Film_Ruled wrote:
Interesting. For a pro like me who pushes the limits, every bit helps. It takes my version 1 two full stops to equal the sharpness of my version two at 16mm. I think it is really interesting how the opinions of working pros and hobby types with thousands in gear differ.
, kind of what I was thinking..
