p.37 #1 · '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
The differences diminish as you stop down, at least in terms of corner and edge sharpness. You'd see the most improvement in sharpness at f/2.8, and perhaps a little at f/8 in the corners. Flare is better controlled on the new lens, and I think that there's a bit less distortion at the wide end. CA is reduced, at least in my own comparison.
I'm happy with the change, but I tend to use the f/2.8 through f/8 range a bit more.
p.37 #7 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
i JUST bought mine from newegg like an hour ago. I couldn't find it by searching, but it was still there in my wishlist. Same price as last week when i put it there.
I'm mostly going to use it for 16-20mm, F2.8-5.6... so i think i should get the best use out of it possible for what i want.
p.37 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I just tested my first 16-35mm II and it is no better than the version one. It will go back and I'll have to wait for more samples. Looks like there must be some sample variation out there...
p.37 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I had similar results. I am not sure what I am going to do at this point. I may try one more copy
Andrew Gough wrote:
I just tested my first 16-35mm II and it is no better than the version one. It will go back and I'll have to wait for more samples. Looks like there must be some sample variation out there...
p.37 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I had a real problem with my first copy of this lens, which was sharp in the center and very soft at the edges, and I had to send it back, but the second copy I received is good enough to meet my expectations.
I have an excellent copy of the 17-40L lens and a perfect copy of the 24-70L lens, which I compared it to. It is noticeably better than my 17-40L lens up to and including f/5.6 and a touch better at f/8 at all corresponding focal lengths. At f/11-16 both of these lenses are equally sharp, the 16-35L II is a little better in the corners on the full size sensor image (5D).
If you do not need the f/2.8, the extra 1mm at the wide-angle end and have a good copy of the 17-40L lens shooting mostly at f/11-16 then you do not need this lens. Neither of these lenses comes even close at 35mm to the 24-70L lens, which is also noticeably better at f/2.8-5.6 at 24 and 28mm.
This lens is better than the previous version of this lens by about 2 f/stops and slightly better than the 17-40L lens. It is not perfect but as good as I expected it to be in this wide-angle zoom range and I will keep it.
p.37 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Julius -- how do you compare your perfect 24-70L to your 24-105IS at 24mm and 35mm (and maybe 50mm)? I've been thinking about that 24-105 IS since it came out, but haven't yet pulled the trigger.
p.37 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I thought the 24-105 and 24-70 were very similar and if anything the 24-105 was a bit better in the corners. The IS is what did it for me. I sold my 24-70 and have not looked back
p.37 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Julius wrote:
I had a real problem with my first copy of this lens, which was sharp in the center and very soft at the edges, and I had to send it back, but the second copy I received is good enough to meet my expectations.
I have an excellent copy of the 17-40L lens and a perfect copy of the 24-70L lens, which I compared it to. It is noticeably better than my 17-40L lens up to and including f/5.6 and a touch better at f/8 at all corresponding focal lengths. At f/11-16 both of these lenses are equally sharp, the 16-35L II is a little better in the corners on the full size sensor image (5D).
If you do not need the f/2.8, the extra 1mm at the wide-angle end and have a good copy of the 17-40L lens shooting mostly at f/11-16 then you do not need this lens. Neither of these lenses comes even close at 35mm to the 24-70L lens, which is also noticeably better at f/2.8-5.6 at 24 and 28mm.
This lens is better than the previous version of this lens by about 2 f/stops and slightly better than the 17-40L lens. It is not perfect but as good as I expected it to be in this wide-angle zoom range and I will keep it. ...Show more →
I am hoping that the second copy will be much better, I had hoped for a 1 stop improvement in the corners, but the lens that I tested was no better than my version1. I just managed to lay my hands on a really sharp copy of a Sigma 12-24 though!
p.37 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
httivals wrote:
Julius -- how do you compare your perfect 24-70L to your 24-105IS at 24mm and 35mm (and maybe 50mm)? I've been thinking about that 24-105 IS since it came out, but haven't yet pulled the trigger.
I sent you a reply to your Email with my findings on these two lenses.
.