p.31 #3 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Manual focus with the Contax is obtained using the Aperture ring, set it to F22 and the lens will be in manual focus mode.
stanj wrote:
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)...Show more →
p.31 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Geez... I just have my opinion and I suspect that there is so much lens to lens variation with both the I and II versions that people will have different viewpoints, I was simply stating mine.
PS i would also add that I did express my views in a summary after extensive comparisons earlier in the thread.
Film_Ruled wrote:
Then leave it be already. For many of us, this lens is much improved. You have moved on, that's great.
Next.........
Edited by mark1958 on Apr 11, 2007 at 08:00 AM GMT
p.31 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Another addition to my questionable side-by-side comparison: Flare. Yes, I know, it's not the same picture (all handheld), and not even the same exposure (I forgot that the 17-40 consistently underexposes, go figure). But it may give you an idea. http://dpr.jirman.com/wides/flare/index.html
All lenses had the same type filter on (Pro 1 skylight), because that's the filter that's relevant for me. As always, YMMV
Thanks for the note about the CZ lens and MF - too late, it's been returned to the rightful owner. I don't consider it relevant for my test, anyway, so I didn't pursue it much.
p.31 #7 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
And how is "Mine went back today" a constructive and informative opinion on the lens?
Just...
Move........
On...................
mark1958 wrote:
Geez... I just have my opinion and I suspect that there is so much lens to lens variation with both the I and II versions that people will have different viewpoints, I was simply stating mine.
p.31 #8 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Film Ruled. I gave a description and summary of my results and comparisons earlier in the thread along with several additional addendums.. I did state that there were clear advantages to the version II but the differences were not great enough for me to upgrade. Several others have had similar opinions-- so all I can say is
so you can take your MOVE ON and Shove it.
Film_Ruled wrote:
And how is "Mine went back today" a constructive and informative opinion on the lens?
p.31 #9 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
stanj wrote:
Another addition to my questionable side-by-side comparison: Flare. Yes, I know, it's not the same picture (all handheld), and not even the same exposure (I forgot that the 17-40 consistently underexposes, go figure). But it may give you an idea. http://dpr.jirman.com/wides/flare/index.html
All lenses had the same type filter on (Pro 1 skylight), because that's the filter that's relevant for me. As always, YMMV
Nice comparison, Stan. The new 16-35 definately does better with flare than the Mk-I did. It still might be a notch behind the 17-40 which performs very well in terms of flare. But it's definately much closer to the 17-40 than the 16-35-1.
p.31 #10 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Film_Ruled wrote:
And how is "Mine went back today" a constructive and informative opinion on the lens?
Just...
Move........
On...................
Dude... when did you become the forum police?
Relax. Mark's opinion here is just as welcome as yours. Look at his history - he's been around FM a long time and been a great contributor. Don't be so pompous.
p.31 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Mike Hatam wrote:
Dude... when did you become the forum police?
Relax. Mark's opinion here is just as welcome as yours. Look at his history - he's been around FM a long time and been a great contributor. Don't be so pompous.
Lame...
Why defend a comment like "Mine went back today"? It does not matter how long a person is a member of a forum, a lame post is a lame post, plain and simple.
p.31 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Film Ruled. You made a factually incorrect statement when you said I offered no basis for my opinion other than my statement the lens went back. In a very polite way, I stated if you go back and read a few pages back I did base my opinions on testing I did in a side-by-side comparison. I spent half a day doing so and summarized my findings. in addition, I also stated some of the agreements and disagreements about each individuals own experiences were in part likely do to lens to lens variation, a topic discussed here at length. In addition, the advantages this lens gives may be worth the price differential to some but not others.
So please stop with your arrogance. Mark
Film_Ruled wrote:
Lame...
Why defend a comment like "Mine went back today"? It does not matter how long a person is a member of a forum, a lame post is a lame post, plain and simple.
p.31 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
So it's another slightly warmed over upgrade rather than the wonder lens everyone was wanting. Maybe if they didn't restrict themselves by the low selling price for such an exotic specification it would be better.
p.31 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Really, Film Ruled, I value Mark's opinion as much as most anybody else's - he bought the lens and decided that for his purposes, the upgrade wasn't worthwhile so he returned it. He described his findings here.
I don't see a problem with that. I'm probably going to buy one of these, but like all fairly large purchases, I want to be sure of what I'm buying before laying down the money. Opinions from trusted sources on this thread, along with the example images, are all of great value to help me make that decision.
And I appreciate all of them including Mark's and yours.
p.31 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I do not think it is a wrong decision if someone wants an upgrade. It would depend on how often they used that focal range. if i were buying new, I would certainly say it is worth the 200 or so dollars difference. However you can get a used version one for about 1K so is it worth the 500 to 600 dollar difference? I do not use this lens as much as I used to since the 24-105 was released. I find that this lens was a better optic in the 24 to 35mm range, and I found that i rarely used the 16 to 24mm range... or less often. I have a 21mm contax distagon if I need wider. The issue for me is that I do not always carry that extra lens so that is the issue. In addition, i used the 16-35 more often when I had a cropped sensor canon DSLR, which I no longer have. I may have even elected to get the 17-40 except it was not available when i bought the 16-35. So i have even considered selling my verison I lens, which was handed picked from 3 i tested side by side. So my logic and reasoning fits my needs. It may not fit all.
p.31 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
The CZ 21mm is much better in terms of flare, CA and image sharpness corner to corner. It does suffer from some level of distortion. At some point, I could try to take some test shots and post them.
