There once was a Gardner who's bee-hive
Was jostled and bumped and alive,
He'd heard praise of C-Z, got ranty and queasy,
And made off with his friend's 16-35
It's nice to know that Canon is committed to improving existing lenses and to issuing new (medium FL) ones. Now can I hope for a faster WA primes (like a 20mm F1.8/2.0) with even better quality than the 16-35 MKII or is the 16-35 F2.8 design/performance the best that Canon can do?
gord gage-cole wrote:
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
There is no "problem" per se. The lens has excellent sharpness in the centre of the frame at all apertures and all focal lengths. That said, it needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 for good corners and for critical work at the 16mm end I would recommend f/8 - f/11 for perfect corners.
It has vignetting at f/2.8 that is basically gone by f/4.
Personally, any circumstance where I need f/2.8 I don't need perfect corners on my 5D, so I am not too fussed. I can wait until the new lens drops in price.
Looking at the past 2-3 pages, it's just funny how people can claim the merits of what is essentially vapourware. The 16-35 mk2 isn't even out yet and I don't know of anyone that actually has some good sample images from it, yet people are bashing the old mk1 simply because there's a new version that's out.
Some of the most spectacular and exotic glass from Nikon were made in the 70s and 80s and just because there are newer replacements available, it doesn't render the old versions obsolete. I know Canon might be different but many times design change more so for economic savings in production and the slight improvements in image quality is more of a by product than the goal.
I'm not saying the 16-35 mk2 will be worse or better than the mk1, but lets just calm down a little and wait till we actually have some concrete samples of what the mk2 can do before passing off judgements.
beewee wrote:
I'm not saying the 16-35 mk2 will be worse or better than the mk1, but lets just calm down a little and wait till we actually have some concrete samples of what the mk2 can do before passing off judgements.
That said, I must admit I can't remember the last time Canon had issued a Mark-II version of ANY lens so soon [relatively speaking] after its initial launch date [Decmber 2001].
There MUST be someting wrong with the current version that needed repair.
I AM a current owner of the current version ...
Well, looking at MTF curves Canon has found out how to make their most expensive UWA zoom better than this what Antony wrote: The lens has excellent sharpness in the centre of the frame at all apertures and all focal lengths. That said, it needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 for good corners and for critical work at the 16mm end I would recommend f/8 - f/11 for perfect corners.
I took a few test shots this morning at 16 mm with my own copy and 5D, and I fully agree with Antony's words. Matches well with what the MTF curves tell.
Edited by Koivulehto on Feb 25, 2007 at 04:25 PM GMT (Reason: Added references to MTF curves)
p.6 #10 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
My current 16-35L which has just had a few test shots, performs flawlessly. As sharp as my old 24-70 by f4. Contrast is brilliant and flare control is very good. It's a recently manufactured lens. Can't wait to compare the new one.
p.6 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"There MUST be someting wrong with the current version that needed repair."
The odds on bets in the rumor mill has Canon coming out with a 22MP 1Ds3 and this much resolution will pretty much eat anything Canon has on the wide end so I think (others have said this before so I'm just parroting) Canon, in this case, is future casting their lense announcements to their upcoming 1Ds3 announcement.
The 16-35, on a 1.6X FOVC, is a stellar performer, IMNSHO but that opens the door for childish debates that go something like:
p.6 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
BeeMan458 wrote:
"There MUST be someting wrong with the current version that needed repair."
You took my words out of their context. I also said:
" ... I can't remember the last time Canon had issued a Mark-II version of ANY lens so soon [relatively speaking] after its initial launch date [Decmber 2001]...", -------- therefore ...
p.6 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Wasn't trying to take them out of context as I was working with the whole of your above as to a reason why.
How did I take your words out of context considering I was working with your above?
I don't think there's anything wrong with the 16-35. There's no question that the corners can be improved but overall, it's a "very" fine zoom lense in it's class. But considering the needs of many, to have better and that pixel densities are increasing, Canon needs to come out with a lense capable of exploiting the higher resolutions of their newer, rumored offerings in the WA, zoom department.
Hopefully you'll see that I was working within the context of how I perceived your comments as again, I was working "with" your comment, not against it. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding or you perceived me taking your words out of context as I don't like that either.
p.6 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
BeeMan458 wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with the 16-35. There's no question that the corners can be improved but overall, it's a "very" fine zoom lense in it's class. But considering the needs of many, to have better and that pixel densities are increasing, Canon needs to come out with a lense capable of exploiting the higher resolutions of their newer, rumored offerings in the WA, zoom department.
If that was indeed the case, than Canon was to upgrade ALL the Lenses inferior to the current 16-35, in preparation of the upcoming higher-resolution cameras... but they didn't, as of yet ...
p.6 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
roli_bark wrote:
If that was indeed the case, than Canon was to upgrade ALL the Lenses inferior to the current 16-35, in preparation of the upcoming higher-resolution cameras... but they didn't, as of yet ...
Canon like everyone else has limited R&D resources, so they must prioritize the upgrades. For the L category lenses, which in principle should match Canon's top DSLR, I don't remember any other current lens than the 16-35 f/2.8 (well, I haven't used the 17-40 f/4), whose FF edge performance benefits equally much from stopping from f/2.8 to f/8.
p.6 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Koivulehto wrote:
Canon like everyone else has limited R&D resources, so they must prioritize the upgrades. For the L category lenses, which in principle should match Canon's top DSLR, I don't remember any other current lens than the 16-35 f/2.8 (well, I haven't used the 17-40 f/4), whose FF edge performance benefits equally much from stopping from f/2.8 to f/8.
p.6 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"If that was indeed the case, than Canon was to upgrade ALL the Lenses inferior to the current 16-35, ..."
One lense at a time, they'll be doing exactly what you suggest as it started with the 85L and it's ability to transmit distance data which is now followed by the 16-35II's MTF improvements. Canon has a well known history of slowly and methodically improving their lense offerings as needed.
As to improving L lenses inferior to the 16-35, aaaaaah, I don't think there are any with the exception of, arguably, the 24L. Check out the edge-to-edge (MTF) of Canon's current "L" offerings.
p.6 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
The previous 85L (Mark-I) was by FAR much [much much] superior than the 16-35L Mark-I...
There were other reasons [than preparation for higher resolution Cameras] for upgrading the 85L: flare issues, slow focussing speed, and full ETTL-II compatibily - none related to higher resolution.
p.6 #20 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
It is quite reasonable to think Canon can improve a great lens. I'm going to listen to reviews once the lens is actually out there and if warrented, try out the new one. Unlike many on this post that hate the 16-35 as it is now, I love mine and use it a lot. So if a new one is even better, then will upgrade to make an even better experience. I got the new 85L and it was enough of an upgrade from the old one that it was worth it. Now if we are talking about a lens that just sits in the bag most of the time, might feel differently. Not a big fan of MTF charts and the like...what is important is what the images look like coming off the card. Off to shoot now, some rare snow here and better to be shooting.
Edited by Shane Canfield on Feb 25, 2007 at 12:58 PM GMT
