p.38 #1 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I got mine today and I love this thing! I only managed to take a couple of shots
when I got home just before sunset, but I can tell the sharpness is there.
I have a bit of CA on tough spots (windows) even at f8, but what I love about the lens,
which often is lost in the whole sharpness/vigneting/CA etc discussion
is its contrast and the colors it produces. Pure joy...
Edited by snowboarder on Apr 25, 2007 at 06:13 AM GMT
p.38 #2 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Enjoy your new lens, I certainly enjoy mine. I also noticed that the images produced by this lens are "extra crispy" with more contrast and even slightly better colors than my 17-40L lens in comparison.
p.38 #4 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I'm interested in a 16-35 f/2.8 for use on my future 1D Mark III. Do people that got the new version notice much improvement in corner sharpness on a 1.3x crop from let's say f/5.6 and smaller (I'm not interested in corner sharpness at bigger apertures)? I have a feeling that the Mark I will be just fine for my needs.
Also, how problematic, if at all, is the mediocre flare resistance of the old 16-35? I'll be using it for event work, which could mean I'd be facing some disco or stage lights shining into the lens.
p.38 #5 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Well,
I have been on a big commercial lifestyle shoot at a resort in Baja for a week now I can honestly say that overall, the 16-35-II is a pretty big improvement compared to my old one. I have been shooting about 20-30GB of RAW's and time-lapse sequences per day and the look of this lens at any focal length and aperture is much improved in terms of color saturation, contrast and real world sharpness.
Even the art director who knows very little about camera work noticed that the images are "poppy" from the ultra-wide shots. Folks, you really ought to get off of here and stop pecking at the lens and just use it, the new 16-35 is even a good bit better than the D200 with the 12-24 on it ( I use that for time-lapse ).
p.38 #6 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Interesting to hear on the 16-35II.
I still favor the 17-40 for its lighter weight, but would like to see Canon make improvements to that lens in terms of corner sharpness and speed. Perhaps a 17-28 f2.8 L in the same weight range would be nice.
p.38 #7 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Walt Stearns wrote:
Interesting to hear on the 16-35II.
I still favor the 17-40 for its lighter weight, but would like to see Canon make improvements to that lens in terms of corner sharpness and speed. Perhaps a 17-28 f2.8 L in the same weight range would be nice.
This is just beyond me. Some people will never be happy or will always
look for an excuse not to be happy...
16-35L is almost identical weight as 17-40L, and then not to like 16-35L,
because 17-28L would be better is just.... whatever. Don't want it - don't buy it.
The lens is really great, after having spent a few days with it, it's becoming
my primary travel lens. My two lens combo will be - 16-35L II + 85L II.
Double two
p.38 #8 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
17-40: 500g
16-35 mkI: 600g
16-35 mkII: 635g
135g = ~5 oz. There is a time and place for gram counting (my trekking pack didn't get to 18 lbs baseweight without it) but is it really that hard to find 5 oz of other stuff to leave behind? Do you simply own the 17-40 and feel compelled to slag the new lens? c.f. cognitive dissonance. The lightness of the 17-40 is impressive and it's part of why I own one, but realistically the weight of the 16-35mkII isn't an issue.
It may also help to settle a few disputes about the Leica 19mm, and help to determine the value of the Olympus 18mm, or these samples, at least!
Distortion and CA tests follow.
These are all thoroughbred lenses, and it's been a pleasure to work with them. The Canon 16-35m II may finally be a wide angle Canon can be proud of, but is it as good as the top primes below 20mm? All feedback appreciated . . .
p.38 #13 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Nice testing, Mark.
It's odd that that one corner (upper left?) on your copy struggles a bit.
I also note that the CA on that Olympus 18 mm (f/8, upper right corner) is pretty bad. The Leica looks nice (of course!), though I'm not certain that I can see it's superior color - yes, the Canon appears slightly warmer (or the Leica cooler), but I don't think the difference is substantial. I'll study the images more.
I think that this Canon wide zoom is holding its own against the two wide primes so far. I'm looking forward to the distortion and CA tests (though I'm pretty certain that distortion on the new 16-35 is less than it was on the old 16-35, at least at 16 mm).
p.38 #15 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Andrew Maier wrote:
Interested to see how it compares to my new 17-40
-A
I'll be comparing it with the 17-40 next week . . . watch this (that?) space.
The Mark II has a different pattern of distortion distribution: the Mark I had moderately strong barrel distortion decreasing from 16-22mm, was dead neutral from 23-25mm, then went into pincushion. The Mark II has a lesser degree of barrel distortion from 16-18mm and is dead neutral from 19-22mm.
p.38 #16 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
hubsand wrote:
The Mark II has an entirely different pattern of distortion distribution through its zoom range: the Mark I had moderately strong barrel distortion decreasing from 16-22mm, was dead neutral from 23-25mm, then went into pincushion. The Mark II has a hint of waveform distortion at 16mm but is dead neutral from 17-21mm. For my money, that's a big improvement.
Me too, since I tend to use the 24-70 within the 24+ range. I think that Canon "tuned" the new design for the 16-24 range where this lens might prove most useful.
p.38 #18 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Walt Stearns wrote:
Interesting to hear on the 16-35II.
I still favor the 17-40 for its lighter weight, but would like to see Canon make improvements to that lens in terms of corner sharpness and speed. Perhaps a 17-28 f2.8 L in the same weight range would be nice.
I think the extra mm at the wide end and 1-stop brighter viewfinder of the 16-35 II are well worth a few extra grams of mass over the 17-40. The need for 82mm filters is a much greater inconvenience.
p.38 #20 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
got my 16mkII today, and all i can say is i'm very happy. I don't have my beater 16mk1 with me, it's on the other side of the world w/ my wife- but i will say with certainty that this is a worthy upgrade. I must have gotten one of the "good" copies haha
