p.36 #1 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I'm with Neil on the 17-40. I bought one back when they came out. Was okay on my cropped camera, but the corners weren't very good on the 5D that I ended up getting. I ended up getting a 16-35 mk I which was better than the 17-40.....and my mk II is better than my mk I. So I'm tired of playing the lens game...... For those with really good 17-40's and 16-35 mk I's, there's probably a lot less motivation to do anything
I know I posted a bunch of samples, and I know they are not perfect. But they are about as perfect I think I'm going to get without spending a lot more time and/or money.
p.36 #2 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
No doubt there are some mediocre 17-40mms, but Canon appears to have recently gotten it's act together. Check out the recent 16:9 reevaluation of the lens by Mark Welsh. Mark's lens reviews are the best I've seen, and my own recent testing of recent samples of the lens yields results consistent with his conclusion that if you get a good one it's as good as any wide angle zoom, except for perhaps the Contax 17-35mm, and that Canon's quality control for this lens, at least, is markedly improving.
p.36 #3 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Hopefully that's across the board on all lenses. Like I said, mine was an early one....and I bought the mk I a ways back too. There have been posts that the consistency if the mk I's have improved recently as well. Some lenses now have gotten "reputations" (the mk I is probably a good example) and it's unfortunate that you have to worry about whether you should sit pat or take another card (how many copies do you need to get before you think you have a winner.) Then it comes down to just picking a lens based on needs.
p.36 #4 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
neilgundel wrote:
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.
My Mk II is superior to my Mk I in the corners as well, particularly at f/2.8 through f/5.6 or so. At f/8, they're close. At f/11, the corner sharpness is similar (good for both). Center sharpness was never an issue, except at f/2.8 where the Mk 1 was decent, but not great. The Mk II improves there at f/2.8, but beyond that, they're similar in the middle of the frame.
My own testing isn't conclusive, but it appears that flare is better controlled on the new version, and I think that barrel distortion at 16 mm is less as well. CA is less, perhaps cut in half.
p.36 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
No doubt there are sample variations with the 17-40 but it seemed like the 16-35 Mk I led all other Canon lenses, combined, in the reports here of sample variation. But when someone had a good one it was well treasured.
In fact as far as I can recall there was only one report that I saw here of a bad 17-40 to which the author later admitted user error.
p.36 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Page turn....
Looks like we need to notify Jeff. I think he can straighten out the thread.
Phil,
I had a 17-40 which I loved on the 10D. I liked it on the 1D II, but my 16-35 won out in corner performance (slightly). Looking back, they were pretty close on the 1.3X body. Not sure how they'd compare on my 5D as I sold the 17-40 2 years ago.
p.36 #7 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
i had an early 17-40 that i only used on film, and it never really impressed me much then. It was cool and all, but it was also my first L. My 16-35 has been around the block (and the world) with me, been through hell, never really shined optically.... been to canon twice (my fault on both), and still kinda sucks. Right now my wife is using it on the old 1D as an everyday lens, and she doesn't care (or know) that it's quite obviously decentered.
I'm going to try the mkII soon enough, and hopefully it works for me.
p.36 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Hi,
Try here http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canoneos20dacc.htm#16-35II where you can get the Mark II for Aussie $2099 (incldung all taxes etc). They used to sell the mark I for $1899 so basicaly $300 more... If you allow for our $.80 exchnage rate and 5% customs and 10% GST you are looking at a fair price @ $2099 aussie compared to $1599 US.
p.36 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Chris,
My 17-40 isn't my favorite but it is easily my most used lens. Just got back from the Grand Canyon and it did a great job on my 20D.
But... my nephew is starting out in dslr in NYC and needs a wide angle... I mean the 17-40 would be perfect.. and this new 16-35 is looking sweeter and sweeter as more and more reports come in...
p.36 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
alright, here's a question I haven't seen addressed:
how's the bokeh? For instance, environmental portraits with the subject close and the background at least somewhat OOF. Here's one showing off the harsh bokeh of the 17-40, 35mm @ f4 on FF:
p.36 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Quick question - I use my Mk I 16-35 Canon zoom only for landscapes, always shooting from f/8 to f/16. When I need low light performance, I use a prime. Will the Mk II 16-35 offer me anything given the type of shooting I do?
p.36 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
smpetty wrote:
Quick question - I use my Mk I 16-35 Canon zoom only for landscapes, always shooting from f/8 to f/16. When I need low light performance, I use a prime. Will the Mk II 16-35 offer me anything given the type of shooting I do?
Thanks in advance,
Scott
I would say very little would be gained by upgrading. Maybe a liitle less flare if that's ever a problem for you.
p.36 #20 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
fourfa wrote:
alright, here's a question I haven't seen addressed:
how's the bokeh? For instance, environmental portraits with the subject close and the background at least somewhat OOF.
I don't suppose there's a wide angle zoom yet made that actually has good bokeh, but thought I might as well ask.
I assume the Mk2 is not significantly different to Mk1 wrt bokeh. Here is 16-35 Mk1 at 19 mm, f/2.8, ISO 800, 1/32 s, DPP with sharpening set to 0 (click the thumbnail for a larger image):
