p.30 #1 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed with the Mk II. I think it is only marginally better than the 1st version. I was expecting a significant improvement. The vignetting problem is still there, even without a filter. I am wondering if I should return this lens and just keep my 17-40L. I would not recommend the Mk II lens to non-FF users.
p.30 #2 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
My 16-35 MK I was better than the 17-40 it replaced. The 17-40's corners were soft even when stopped down (f11 and greater) on the wide end (on my 5D). I guess it all depends on a dice roll unfortunately. Hopefully Canon's QC is improving.
p.30 #3 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
cactusclay wrote:
One of the reasons I sold my 17-40, is because it wasn't really any better than the kit lens, on a crop body. I was just looking at the new 16-35 and comparing it to the kit lens on the Digital Picture site and other than contrast, I can't see that it's that much better, certainly not fifteen hundred dollars better. Of coarse you can't use it on full frame. Other than bigger and heavier and maybe water resistance, I don't think the wide to mid range zooms are all that much better than the consumer couter parts. Compare the 24-85 to any of the wide to mid range "L" zooms on the Digital Picture ISO Chart and you will see what I mean....Show more →
I used to own the 24-85mm and the 28-70mm L i replaced it with was noticably better in every way, especially in sharpness
p.30 #4 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
mark1958 wrote:
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.
Interesting. My MK II version seems to be no better and perhaps a little worse than the MK I from 28 or so to 35mm, but more controlled side by side testing should be conducted when the weather clears up. The 16-24mm range is better on the MK II, especially in the red channel. The poor sagittal resolution of the red channel at the wide end (worse in the corners) is a major limitation of the MK I lens that has been rectified in the MK II model.
p.30 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I've got a 17-40 and I don't really need the speed, so I am going to be curious about comparisons bewteen the 17-40 and the 16-35 II. I'm certainly going to do some comparing (if I can borrow a 16-35 from my local dealer) when I get my 1D3. I'd love to hear from anyone who manages to make that lens comparison with a 1.3x body.
p.30 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I just wanted to check if anyone in Canada has managed to get the 16-35L II from anywhere other then The Camera Store.
I'm getting extremely irritated that The Camera Store has already gotten two shipments in (and they still have over 40 people on their wait list), whereas Vistek (where I'm on the wait list), doesn't seem to have a clue when they will receive a shipment. I checked with the store here last week and they said it may be in by the end of the week. I alsoI spoke to their Toronto Store last week and was told they expected the lense in on April 9. Today the Toronto store is saying it won't be until the start of May or mid-May I also asked at a couple of other places and no other store seems to have a clue when they will be getting a shipment of the lens.
Edited by khurram1 on Apr 09, 2007 at 04:45 PM GMT
p.30 #7 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I have taken some test shots of my garage door with the 16-35, 17-40, and 16-35 II. For those who care, you can see the images here: http://dpr.jirman.com/wides/
It includes in-camera JPGs from my 1Ds2 (small size - press the loupe above an image), which should be fine for making an impression. I also shot against the Carl Zeiss 17-35/2.8 adapted for EOS, but I could not turn off AF and so some pictures had focus issues, which is why I am not including them. Overall the CZ lens was the sharpest but not all that much more so than the 16-35 II.
Is the test flawed? Sure it is. I have no doubt that you can shoot 101 holes into it. So take it or leave it I for one will be selling my 17-40.
EDIT: See my comment below about corrupt embedded & displayed EXIF on some of the 16-35L MK1 images.
Edited by stanj on Apr 09, 2007 at 10:16 AM GMT (Reason: Added comment about corrupted EXIF)
p.30 #8 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Thanks, Stan. Your efforts are appreciated.
It appears that the new model presents a significant improvement over Mk I and has better corner performance than does your 17-40 as well. CA is much better and by f/4, I can see a great deal of detail in the corners.
p.30 #9 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Stan can you clarify if some of the labels on the 16-35mm are wrong. You have the first images at 35mm and it loooks like the field of view is closer to your previous 16mm shots
p.30 #10 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
For those wishing to get a copy of this lens, I would highly recommend Tallyn's in Illinois <http://www.tallyns.com> as they have the best prices. Their customer service is superb and they ship very quickly - I received my copy a week ago.
p.30 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
mark1958 wrote:
Stan can you clarify if some of the labels on the 16-35mm are wrong. You have the first images at 35mm and it loooks like the field of view is closer to your previous 16mm shots
Indeed it seems that the web site was generated with an error (curious...). The sequence was always the same, same focal lengths, and same apertures. When you download the fullsize images you are dealing with the actual image that the camera generated, so the embedded exif should be complete & correct.
EDIT: I just checked the original images (including the raws) that came off the camera, and indeed it apparently reported the 16mm focal length as 35mm. That's in the raw images themselves, so it seems that the camera had a brain fart. Therefore, please use common sense when reviewing the images
p.30 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
stanj wrote:
I have taken some test shots of my garage door with the 16-35, 17-40, and 16-35 II. ....
Is the test flawed? Sure it is. I have no doubt that you can shoot 101 holes into it. So take it or leave it I for one will be selling my 17-40......
Stan, you are the man! Real world-ish and test-ish at the same time. And a matrix of apertures and focal lengths, distributed over three lenses. Too cool for school!
Ok, My impression: The 17-40 has lost it's dominance on the wide end, meaning, at the same f4, fully wide, the corners of the 16-35 MkII are, for all practical purposes, equivalent to the 17-40. I'll leave it to the hard core, with better eyes than I, to ferret out better sharpness one way or the other, and I assume that with copy variation, that debate will endure. The advantages, therefor, of the 16-35 MkII are: f2.8 (no small matter) and 1mm wider (no small matter). And in favor of the 17-40? Price (no small matter) and ultimately, I give center sharpness or perhaps it's contrast, to the... drumroll... 17-40. I'm looking at wood grain and nail heads and shadow detail at 5.6 and f8 for both lenses in two browsers going back and forth... sheesh... I'm tired....
Is the upgrade worth it? Hmmm, for me, I dunno... I have the 17-40 and a 24 f1.4, so I can go even faster than 2.8 (though I have to stop down to f2 to get sharp corners.. but that's still faster than 2.8, and 1.4 is a dream) Then again, if I sold the 17-40 and the 24, and bought the MkII, I'd have only one lens to lug around.... Hmmm, I lust for the 16-35 MkII, but I'm probably going to sit still for a while and watch the debate rage....
p.30 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
From what I can gather here, there is a trade off or compromise with the 16-35L II. Yes, the corners are visibly sharper, but at the expense of center sharpness. That is not say that the center is not sharp - just not as sharp as any good copy of the older 16-35L or 17-40L.
So is it worth it as an upgrade? For most people, probably not. But if you have a FF body and don't already own an UWA lens, and need one, you should probably get one ..... but don't pay more than $1,500.
p.30 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
bobbytan wrote:
From what I can gather here, there is a trade off or compromise with the 16-35L II. Yes, the corners are visibly sharper, but at the expense of center sharpness. That is not say that the center is not sharp - just not as sharp as any good copy of the older 16-35L or 17-40L.
Personally I prefer an even image to one that has huge variation in detail quality. Having shot "full frame" pretty much my whole life, with a brief 1-year stint with the D60, the MK2 is a good and relevant improvement for me. However, today I am coming from the 17-40 (since I got rid of the 16-35 as soon as the 17-40 came out, because of the more even picture). Here, the difference is much less grave. My reason to upgrade is my new requirement for fast lenses for available light indoor photography. Even at ISO 1600, f2.8 ain't all that fast, but sometimes 24mm isn't wide enough....
p.30 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
The hood on the new MK II lens is the same outside dimensions for left to right width and top to bottom height. The front to back dimension of the hood is actually a little less for the hood its self. When you have the hood installed on the new lens, which is a longer lens, the total lens plus hood length of the new MK II lens is about 5 mm longer than the old lens. The hood looks like it may be a little thicker material, to make it slightly stronger.
I also asked at a couple of other places and no other store seems to have a clue when they will be getting a shipment of the lens. 
I for one will be selling my 17-40.