Is it just me, or am I the only one that has thought that considering how good canon were able to make the new 17-55 f2.8 IS, that the new 16-35 should be an absolute ripper based on what they were able to achieve with the EFS.
Canon are trademarking new lens technologies every day, and there is no reason that the new lens shouldn't be a ball tearer!!
I wouldnt stress about the MTF's, just wait to see how it goes.
I will be getting one , as I considered the 17-55, but want the freedom to change from APS-C, to APS-H to full frame, and back again if I want to. For the moment, it will give me a perfect 25-55 range, for all occasions, on my 20D.
oh, and couple this new lens with native ISO 3200, and low light should be no dramas at all!!, that is if the ISO samples actually are as good as they look on the new 1D
although I am probably in the minority, I would have *loved* to see IS on this (16-35/II) lens. There are times when it would be great to be able to stop down to f/8 and still hand hold a shot in marginal light.
again, I realize I am in the minority so you dont need to tell me what a stupid feature this would be. for my uses it would be welcomed (even given the price effect)
BeeMan458 wrote:
What I don't understand, and my singular point was, why is it when somebody says anything good about the 16-35, somebody feels obligated to trot out the CZ21 comment, as if it's a valid comment when the comment in regard to the CZ21 is specious at best and completely irrelevant in the least.
For that I totally agree with you. Especially that they're saying that the CZ21 is better than the Leica 19...I mean, come on!
Alternatives aside...I still think it's valid to compare anything: prime, zoom, formats -- at the same FOV.
But on a more serious on-topic note, looking at the MTFs a little harder...I think that 1.6x crop camera users are probably better off sticking with the old 16-35.
although I am probably in the minority, I would have *loved* to see IS on this (16-35/II) lens. There are times when it would be great to be able to stop down to f/8 and still hand hold a shot in marginal light.
again, I realize I am in the minority so you dont need to tell me what a stupid feature this would be. for my uses it would be welcomed (even given the price effect)
Then let's be the minority together. Personally, I like shooting at f/16 on the 5D or 1D2...and I would have paid $2k for a 16-35/2.8IS with decent corner and stopped-down performance.
VanIsle wrote:
again, I realize I am in the minority so you dont need to tell me what a stupid feature this would be. for my uses it would be welcomed (even given the price effect)
Stupid feature? I say put IS on everything; it's more useful some lenses than others, but if the image quality is not significantly affected (It wasn't on the 70-200 I used), I would love to see that feature on every lens.
p.4 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
johnastovall wrote:
The line for the MkII forms behind me.
I want one to but will live with the 'old' 16-35 until after summer and prices settle out.
I'm right behind you. I have the "old" 16-35 as well. It's the best ultrawide AF lens I've found, but it does hurt in the corners in comparison to, say, the 24-70. I've had 2 Sigma 20's, a Canon 20, a Zeiss/Jena 20, and the Canon 17-40.
The MTF looks promising, expecially around 15 mm from center where the improvement is significant.
p.4 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I'm suprised more people aren't speculating about the reason they would introduce a lens like this. Certainly they need a killer WA with sufficient resolving power for a massive sensor (22mp?) and it would seem smart to make sure that your customers have the lens they need to take advantage of such a sensor BEFORE they actually have the sensor.. It would suck to get your hands on a 1Ds MkIII and not be able to take full advantage of the sensor because the glass is unavailable or on backorder or whatever..
Of course the increased performance is reason enough for many to upgrade, but it seems like this isnt a lens that people have been terribly dissatisfied with on the whole, so upgrading it right now seems a little odd unless they have some additional tricks up their sleeve
p.4 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
cdTzabcan wrote:
I'm suprised more people aren't speculating about the reason they would introduce a lens like this.
I think I'm going to enjoy the II more on the 1DIII than the 1DsII and 5D. For me that 21 to 24mm range is optically the most appealing WA, and looking at the MTF out to 16.88mm, I expect to get great detail all the way out to the very corners on the 1DIII. It'll be nice when I do use it on FF to hopefully get better corner results than the current model.
p.4 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
cdTzabcan wrote:
I'm suprised more people aren't speculating about the reason they would introduce a lens like this. Certainly they need a killer WA with sufficient resolving power for a massive sensor (22mp?) and it would seem smart to make sure that your customers have the lens they need to take advantage of such a sensor BEFORE they actually have the sensor.. It would suck to get your hands on a 1Ds MkIII and not be able to take full advantage of the sensor because the glass is unavailable or on backorder or whatever..
The 16-35/2.8 I has plenty of resolving power. The problem is that at f/2.8 and 16 mm, that resolving power is reserved to an area close to the center of the image. It's only as you stop down that the area of sharpness spreads across the entire frame. At 16 mm, it's sharpest corner performance is around f/11 to f/16. It's good there, but a lot of users would like that kind of sharpness at f/5.6 or so. While it is understood that an ultrawide lens has some physical constraints, it is also noted that the 16-35 does not perform as well as, say, the 24-70. At least not at its widest focal length. At 24 mm, the performance is much closer.
Of course the increased performance is reason enough for many to upgrade, but it seems like this isnt a lens that people have been terribly dissatisfied with on the whole, so upgrading it right now seems a little odd unless they have some additional tricks up their sleeve
Just a thought..
I think that this lens is the most in need of improvement among the Canon "L" zooms. While there may not be a plethora of dissatisfied owners, I would speculate that there are plenty of people wanting better.
The increased performance is a good reason to update. I've shot with 2 Sigma 20 mm primes, a Canon 20 mm prime, an Zeiss/Jena 20 mm prime, and a Canon 17-40. The 16-35 is generally better than all of them although the 17-40 was a strong contender on the 1D II.
p.4 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"But, at this point, I think you're beating a dead horse."
It's in my nature.
Doh!
---------------------------------------
On a 10D, no tricks up my sleeve, my copy is blessed so I'm good until going FF and find out what's really attached. All though, if the micro contrast is greatly improved, that point alone would encourage me to upgrade sooner than later.
p.4 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I really think that the comparisons are made because most people only own one or two lenses at this focal length. Almost all of them represent a significant investment, so it is only natural to compare all options at the focal lengths in this range.
It is important to remember that each lens in this range has its advantages and disadvantages, including the 21mm. It really comes down to money/need and choice, if you have the money or the need (professional or otherwise) you can own all of them, or you have to make a choice based upon intended use and whatever compromise that you are willing to live with...
p.4 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Correct me if wrong, but aren't all of the comparisons of the 16-35L with
various primes prompted from the perception that the 16-35L is the
best ultrawide Canon makes? If they had a great ultrawide prime
then people would compare that with the CZ 21, etc.....
p.4 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
trumpet_guy wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but aren't all of the comparisons of the 16-35L with
various primes prompted from the perception that the 16-35L is the
best ultrawide Canon makes? If they had a great ultrawide prime
then people would compare that with the CZ 21, etc.....
Having used both the 17-40 and the current 16-35, IMO the 17-40 is the better lens, especially on the short end.
p.4 #20 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
At last, Canon decided to upgrade this one... I've always considered that it performed poorly in the corners (for the price as well as compared to some other brands...) and I think that many just said it was very good just because there was no alternative, at least in the Canon line-up.
This one is targeting FF bodies. I don't see why cropped bodies owners could see any interest here.
But it seems to me that the current trend for Canon is not to make some optically exceptionnal lenses. If we consider their most recent lenses: 24-105L is a good walk-around lens but can't pretend to any great ranking, the 70-200 f4 is very good but with limited aperture, the 50f1.2L is just a scam for the price (I own one...), etc...
They had to do something in the wide angle end where they just don't keep up with others, and I would have great expectations given the room there is for improvement... but I have in mind that the 85L Mk2 just can't be optically differentiated from Mk1 (very good though, but certainely not up to the Leica standards...).
