I wonder if the 16-35 upgrade will be followed by updates to the other two most popular pro lenses, the 24-70 f2.8 L and the 70-200 f2.8 L. Both these lenses could benefit from optical improvements, the 24-70 could do with Image Stabilisation, and the 70-200 F4 IS L has a more advanced version of IS than the 2.8.
It is odd that the 24-70 f2.8 L is outperformed by both the consumer 17-55 EF-S f2.8 and the 24-105 F4 IS L, both of which have IS and are optically excellent (ok, the 24-105 distorts a bit at the wide end, but otherwise it is an excellent performer).
My guess is the 24-70, 70-200, and possibly the 100-400 will be next in line by Canon for an overhaul and expect the 82mm filter size to become the new 77mm!
I dont' see the 85L Mk1/Mk2 analogy relevant here, since both 85Ls have same optical elements, with the exception of fancier coating in Mk2. The main upgrades in 85L Mk2 are the slightly quicker AF and linking the lens distance info to the body for flash use. I own a 85L Mk2, not because of upgrade, but because I didn't earlier have any 85 mm lens.
If contrast and flare tolerance are improved in 16-35 Mk2 vs Mk1, it might provide some improvement with all sensor formats, but whether it will be worth > $500 as upgrade costs, remains everyone's personal decision, after we have seen what the actual IQ of Mk2 is.
"Correct me if wrong, but aren't all of the comparisons of the 16-35L with various primes prompted from the perception that the 16-35L is the best ultrawide Canon makes?"
Irrespective of "perception," of the 16-35 being or not being the best WA Canon makes, it has always been and will always be, a zoom with all the built in inherent weaknesses that a zoom brings to the table. The point, comparing a topdog zoom like the 16-35 zoom to a topdog prime such as is the CZ21, has been and always will be, no matter how much people try to jump up and down like the children that they are, an invalid comparison.
"My pick-up truck can haul more dirt up a steep grade then your sports car."
Neener, neener, neener!
Do you see how patently stupid and childish my above is? Of course my pickup truck can carry more dirt up a steep hill cause that's what is designed to do. Now if my truck was able to out handle your sports car, then we might have a real interesting argument on our hands but I don't think I'm going be taking my pickup truck to Laguna any time soon. Same thing with this nauseating claim as to the CZ21, "every time" there's "any" open conversation in regard to Canon's 16-35.
In the case of this thread, it's an announcement that Canon has a new and improved 16-35 to share with folks who care about this stuff. In the case of this announcement who gives a #h!t about "any" other lense and where's the relevance as to what a discontinued CZ21 is capable of and it's relevance to Canon's announcement?
This is how holders of the CZ21 act.
Canon discontinued the 16-35.
"Well it's about time cause that sucker was dog doo in the corners."
Canon gives the 16-35 to charity photographers.
"Well they shouldn't cause it's cr@p in the corners."
Canon drives a stake through the middle of a 16-35.
"Well Canon should have done that years ago, what took them so long."
Canon buys back and apologizes for ever making the 16-35 in the first place.
"What took them so long." "They should buy back every picture made where the corners weren't cropped because what they did to the poor unsuspecting public was criminal;" and oh my God, those corners." "How can Canon engineers stand themselves in the morning."
Canon engineers shave their head and move to Tibet in atonement.
"And well they should cause those corners were beyond belief."
Do you folks realize how lame owners of a CZ21 sound.
"Well my CZ21, when I get the shot, is so sharp in the corners, I have to get permission from my optician to look at the final print."
"All you owners of a 16-35, why you poor, poor, miserable little dears." "Don't you just feel just horrible cause you're not using a CZ21?" "I don't need Viagra cause every time I pull out my CZ21......" "Did I tell you how sharp my CZ21 is, in the corners?"
I know but the bee season doesn't start for another month, the business taxes are done and the checks in the mail. I put the camera down cause I've burned out artistically and have lost my photographic purpose but that's another story. I even went shopping last night for pots-n-pans just so as to give me something to do.
BeeMan458 wrote:
I even went shopping last night for pots-n-pans just so as to give me something to do.
Drat!
Just don't look at those CuisinZarp pans; I hear the 21 frying pan is so sharp it cuts your food for you as you throw it into the pan. My old dull All-Clad will certainly never be able to cook an acceptable meal again.
BeeMan458 wrote:
... (as words of an imaginary Zeiss 21 lens owner): "I don't need Viagra cause every time I pull out my CZ21......"
Well, if he doesn't need Viagra, then pulling it out in a public place is criminal in most cultures. Like Hrow (approximately) said, it is better "to keep the old lens case zipped up".
Have you BeeMan considered another hobby than CZ21 owner discussion novels for the off-bee season? Like e.g. limerick writing?
I do a mean bag and legset review but it'd sure be nice to be able to just "once," talk about Canon's 16-35 offerings and not have someone jump in, seemingly with Tourrette syndrome, saying in an uncontrolled fashion; "CZ21."
Okay, that's nice, you have a CZ21. I'm happy for you. Yes, you're right, it's the best lense ever made. Yes, you're right, it's the Swiss Army Knife of the lense set. Yepper's your right, sharp corner to corner; can't put anything over on you. You should be proud of yourself. Yes, you're right, it's very pretty. Now please, go over there and play with your ultra sharp in the corner prime lense cause this thread is about Canon's new 16-35 offering.
Do you realize how lame I'd look if every time someone trotted out a prime and I were to jump in with a zoom comparison.
"Well, do you realize how sharp the 70-200/4.0 is?" "Now that's one sharp lense."
"Dude, we're talking about a prime here, what's with the zoom conversation. If you want to talk about your zoom, start your own thread."
And that's a valid comment. If someone wants to discuss their CZ21, let them start their own thread and I bet nobody goes to that thread and talks about zooms unless it's to dis the 16-35. Seems reasonable when the shoe's on the other foot.
Edited by BeeMan458 on Feb 24, 2007 at 10:18 AM GMT
I have to wonder about the target market of the 16-35 mkII. I don't recall reading a significant number of posts that denegrated the mk I performance on aps-c and aps-h sensors.
Do you think they did this in response to feedback from 5D and 1DS owners, particularly since the 5D seems to have waded heavily into the wedding market?
or, is this an effort to prepare a wide angle zoom of sufficient quality for bodies to come beyond the 1D MIII?
p.5 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
IIRC, somewhere between $1.400.00 and $2,100.00 (USD).
I would suspect, like the 85L II offering, several months after it hits the streets (early adopter fees apply here) the price will fall by about three hundred dollars so I'll guess, six months after it hits the streets, $1,750.00 (USD).
p.5 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
BeeMan, you are the one discussing the CZ21 here - please stop, this is a Canon forum.
I don't own any non-Canon 35 mm format interchangable lenses, but I do own a 16-35 f/2.8 and am just as I type printing a shot from it, to compare the print to another print I made from 4 x 2 panorama shots with my 50 f/1.4 and 5D.
Admittedly the 16-35 shot is at f/11 but it looks very nice also at the extreme corners.
p.5 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"BeeMan, you are the one discussing the CZ21 here - please stop, this is a Canon forum."
Now there's an uninformed comment as you might wish to reread the thread, considering the history of the forum for context before making a comment such as is your above which is basically, in a polite fashion, telling me to sit down and shut-up.
I don't do limericks as I don't see purpose to poetry or verse, of any kind; but that's a personal opinion, not a condemnation as I'll look forward to critical reviews of images created using a 16-35 II attached to the likes of a FF 1DsII or better yet, the yet to be announced 1DsIII.
p.5 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Conversely, I don't see how somebody *could* come out in *any* discussion and say about the old version that -- "the 16-35 is excellent!" Which in the eyes of those that have used better lenses (prime or zoom) would think is just as lame. And I think that used to happen here, IIRC. The new version is *proof* of how false those statements were. Heck, It couldn't even 'beat' the better valued 17-40...
p.5 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I love my current 16-35, excellent lens in every way. No vinetting and sharp to the edges. That being said, will let this new lens go through a year or so, maybe less, and then take a serious look at it. If it is better in a significant way, will trade up.
p.5 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Okay...Then I'd like to re-issue a challenge I put out earlier on this forum for a 16-35 owner to put up a test shot and RAW, UNSHARPENED 100% crops (a la Russ-moondigger as he did for the 17-40)
Everyone prepare to be underwhelmed...or await the lack of response to the challenge. Nobody EVER answers this call.
p.5 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Challenge? Grant. I hate to break the news to you but please, look at the heading of this thread. It's not about the old 16-35 and it's not about the 17-40 or any other lense for that matter as it's a thread about the newly announced 16-35 II.
If you want to do a comparative test, between the old 16-35 and any other lense of your choice, do, in an appropriate venue like a new thread.
For your benefit, the old 16-35 is the worst piece of cr@p lense that Canon has ever had the temerity to design, produce and distribute. It is such a poorly performing lense that even ancient Coke bottle bottoms snicker in disbelief when a 16-35L rolls past their gathering.
Edited by BeeMan458 on Feb 24, 2007 at 11:49 AM GMT
p.5 #20 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I was just talking to a seller of a 16-35 ( not on FM ) I was going for it over the 17-40 just in case I need the 2.8 sometimes, What is the problem with the current version anyway. I want the 16 to 24 mm end of it. Gord
