p.35 #1 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
beewee wrote:
Impressive Tim!
I take it this was all done on tripod since you had a 1s exposure.
Yes, tripod with mirror lockup and cable release. Felt kind of funny laying on the floor in the state capital....but the guards said that's what most people do...
p.35 #3 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
It is the turn page bug, usually caused by a deleted post. You can enter the next page number in your browser and it will show up. Perhaps Jeff can fix this thread.
p.35 #4 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I'm having trouble using this lens at 16mm for spherical panoramas. Which is a shame because it's such a fine performer overall.
I've sucessfully used my spherical tripod head with the 24L, 24-70L, 85L II, and the 17-40L. Neither my own system nor the Manfrotto procedure from the manual yeilds very good alignment. It seems like the nodal point is different for the edges from the center. Could it be possible that they have performed some voodoo to get the sharp edges that makes the nodal point non-uniform? I'll keep testing other focal lengths and report back. I would love any input you all could offer.
Cheers,
Sam
p.35 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Don't do much stitching, so I haven't noticed if that's an issue or not.
Wouldn't the 15mm fisheye be better for "spherical panoramas", though?
Apr 16, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Guest Offline Guest
p.35 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
ISO1600 wrote:
What is the best price people have found out there? I'm starting to consider this to replace my Oly 21, i was thinking about going CZ21- but this gets me back in the AF and sub-20mm game for less $$- and so far there's lots of good reports of the FF performance.
p.35 #9 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Very interesting review vs the 17-40, I've been doing some light testing of the 16-35 II on landscapes and think that given my findings and this review that I may just return the 16-35, too much hassle with lack of filters and not enough gain in sharpness for my type of work. The only application I think I'll sorely miss the 16-35 II on will be for northern lights photography.
p.35 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I have returned my copy and kept my 17-40L. The 16-35/2.8L II is really not that much better than the 17-40L - so I could not justify the price difference. To me, a one-stop difference on a uwa lens is not that important, but YMMV of course. With landscapes and architectural shots, you would normally stop the lens down to between f5.6 and f11 anyway. The amount of vignetting, flare, barrel distortion, contrast and sharpness are all about equal IMHO.
p.35 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I totally agree with what people say. In my own comparisons, the 17-40 was just as good, and far better w.r.t. flare. However, I still sold the 17-40 and kept the 16-35 II because for my work I really need that one stop (shoot pretty much everything f2 or faster if possible). For architecture or landscape the benefits would indeed be questionable.
p.35 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I have the new 16-35 II on the way and was thinking about a getting filter for it. Normally, I don't fool with filters except CPL or ND when required but seeing as the 16-35 II design requires a filter to maintain the sealed feature I was thinking about a UV for dust protection. Being a UWA, it probably should have a slim filter but from what I can see all of those have the push on caps which I hate. I would much prefer a std width filter but might that cause more vignetting. Any thoughts?
p.35 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I would recommend the Hoya Pro-1 series UV filter, which is an ultra-thin super-multi-coated filter which is threaded on both sides - so you can use your original Canon lens cap.
Picasso Moon wrote:
I have the new 16-35 II on the way and was thinking about a getting filter for it. Normally, I don't fool with filters except CPL or ND when required but seeing as the 16-35 II design requires a filter to maintain the sealed feature I was thinking about a UV for dust protection. Being a UWA, it probably should have a slim filter but from what I can see all of those have the push on caps which I hate. I would much prefer a std width filter but might that cause more vignetting. Any thoughts?
p.35 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
stanj wrote:
I totally agree with what people say. In my own comparisons, the 17-40 was just as good, and far better w.r.t. flare. However, I still sold the 17-40 and kept the 16-35 II because for my work I really need that one stop (shoot pretty much everything f2 or faster if possible). For architecture or landscape the benefits would indeed be questionable.
My 16-35 II is all over my 17-40 in the corners at the wide end on a 1DsII. Maybe I just have a below average 17-40 and/or an above average 16-35, but I am keeping the 16-35.
p.35 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I'm also looking for an 82mm CPL. Seems like most of the 82mm CPLs are now on backorder at B&H and Adorama due to the 16-35/II.
Does anyone have both the Hoya Pro-1 and B+W MRC Slim filters? How do they compare and does the Hoya Super HMC actually make a big difference compared to the regular HMC filters?
p.35 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Neil: I think you have a below average 17-40mm. I had a not very good one that I purchased new in Fall 2005. I sold it after I ran some detailed tests that proved to me it was badly decentered (you could actually see this by using the 17mm setting, focusing at the nearest focal point, and trying some images either wide open or stopped down all the way -- I think it was stopped down all the way -- you could see part of the barrel or another part of the lens in one corner of the image, but not anywhere else). . . . I just purchased another new one (manufacture date code Jan 2007) and it is superb. I actually tested two new ones this past week, and they're both superb. I only tested them at 20mm-35mm focal lengths because those are the only focal lengths I'll use consistently. At 20mm, at f8 the image is excellent throughout, although, depending, on where you focus, the corners may be a tad soft. At 20mm by f11 it's sharp across the frame. From 24mm on up, it's sharp across the frame by f8. I think the lens peaks in performance at 24mm and 28mm. From my review of the tests at the digital photographer, Other than perhaps at the 16mm - 17mm setting, I don't think the new lens performs significantly better than the 17-40mm, and is worse in some situations.
p.35 #20 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
beewee wrote:
I'm also looking for an 82mm CPL. Seems like most of the 82mm CPLs are now on backorder at B&H and Adorama due to the 16-35/II.
Does anyone have both the Hoya Pro-1 and B+W MRC Slim filters? How do they compare and does the Hoya Super HMC actually make a big difference compared to the regular HMC filters?
I bought a Kenko Pro 1 D circular polarizer from a seller on eBay. Haven't recevied it yet, but it should be the same as a Hoya Pro 1 D. THK Photo stands for Tokina/Hoya/Kenko and from what I understand the Kenko brand name is what's promoted in Asia. It was $75 shipped. Figured worst case this would be a stop gap until I see what Singh-Ray does. If it turns out to be decent, maybe I'll just stick with it. I don't believe I'll use the filter quite as much as I would on a longer lens.
