This is about apples to apples not apples to pineapples. It's well known that tele's are easier to engineer than UWA's and that the 85L was vastly superior to the 16-35 so I don't even know why you would think comparing an 85L prime telephoto to a 16-35 UWA zoom is a reasonable comparison because they're not. I only brought up the 85L in the spirit of Canon upgrading this lense so it can communicate distance for benefit of the in camera processors and IIRC E-TTL II. The image quality of the 85II was not an improvement over the 85MkI and this was a well discussed point at the time of it's roll out.
I'm not sure the point of your arguing as there's no argument.
As do you, I have use and hopefully like you, love my 16-35 but even with benefit of the 1.6X FOVC, like everybody else, I'd love better corners and more micro contrast. The MTF charts say the corners are improved; to what degree, that will take real world, side-by-side comparative testing but the pudding I want tested is the one which micro contrast creates as that's, to me, where it all comes together.
Better micro contrast, and I'm in line kicking and scratching with the big boys..... well maybe six months after they're available so the intro price will have a chance to roll off a few hundred bucks. Got stuck on the 85L II on that one.
Grant808 wrote:
Mr. Lauri, that looks pretty good to me. It even looks like the 100% crops of that shot might prove me wrong...
Thank you, Grant, but the unsharpened 100% crops from extreme corners are nothing special, just usable. There is some CA on the upper left and something else less good on the upper right, at least partly because of the sun.
havent' there been any test results out yet for the 16-35L II or the 1DIII?
I remember when the 5D and the 24-105L were announeced, there were a lot of reviews out from those that were in the know and had been working with production models..
p.7 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
How about this for logic.. I will keep my current 16-35... save the upgrade cost and put the that towards a 1D3 which won't show those nasty soft corners.
p.7 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Look at this pic of the new 16-35..
Does it look like it "trombones"... I see a pretty big white gap in front of the focus ring... or is that not where it would trombone? Or have you heard it's "constant length" rear focusing?
p.7 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Koivulehto wrote:
Thank you, Grant, but the unsharpened 100% crops from extreme corners are nothing special, just usable. There is some CA on the upper left and something else less good on the upper right, at least partly because of the sun.
Thanks for the crops Mr. Lauri. I do agree that those corners are useable at f/11. I certainly hope the Mark II will provide that level of usability earlier, say by f/5.6.
p.7 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
It'll be a petal hood, and it will resemble the present 16-35 hood. It has to be short enough to not vignette at 16 mm. A petal hood is the best design for an ultrawide as it allows unblocked corners while providing maximum shielding for the lens.
The lens will not extend when zoomed. The front element will probably move within the tube, like the present 16-35 and 17-40, but it will not extend outside of the body of the lens.
