Just browsed through the thread. Funny that the loudest mouth in here doesn't have a full frame camera so this lens should be of little concern for him. Corner sharpness does matter, and Mr. BeeMan45B would probably be more concerned if the corners on his 10D were fuzzy.
I have a Oly 18mm f/3.5 to take care of uwa for me. I would very much like to have the new 16-35L II but like all new lenses introduced lately by Canon it's EXPENSIVE! .. I will probably be sticking with the 25 year old Zuiko.
"...so this lens should be of little concern for him."
So if someone here doesn't meet with your approval, they become invalid? What a crock.
For some, issues of support gear and micro contrast are more important than the benefits or need for full frame but this doesn't invalidate the validity of what they have to write.
If you have complaint about someone, go to either the moderators or PM. I'm sure they'll be happy to share their opinion of you, openly, there.
No, of course it doesn't. What "hauxon" meant was that the 16-35/2.8L II improvements were mostly targeted towards FF users. As you must know, vignetting and corner softness and distortion are real problems for FF but less of a problem if you have a 1.3x crop body, and even lesser of a problem for those using a 1.6x crop camera. The Mk II version corrects these problems - which are not quite relevant to bodies with a crop factor - as they are already only using the center sweet spot of any one of the older lenses.
Sonny wrote:
"...doesn't have a full frame camera so this lens should be of little concern for him"
Does that mean if I were a 20D user, I should only be using EF-S lenses?
Sonny wrote:
"...doesn't have a full frame camera so this lens should be of little concern for him"
Does that mean if I were a 20D user, I should only be using EF-S lenses?
No, but it does take away a little from your credibility as the '16-35 MkI champion fan-boy'. And again, another post with *nothing* to do about the *new* 16-35.
As I said earlier, I wouldn't even want the new version if I only shot 1.6x crop. The improvement for you might be marginal at best.
Edited by Grant808 on Feb 26, 2007 at 09:44 AM GMT (Reason: spelung rrors)
"...doesn't have a full frame camera so this lens should be of little concern for him"
"...- which are not quite relevant to bodies with a crop factor - as they are already only using the center sweet spot of any one of the older lenses."
Why you don't have FF, so you "can't" understand. Why don't you run along and play with your little boy toys. So much for the concept of respect.
Sheesh!
And if using a 1.6X FOVC sensor, issues of CA, pincushion/barrel distortion and micro contrast are now moot? Hopefully these issues will be addressed by the newly announced 16-35II.
Just so you know, issues of vignetting "are" a problem with a 1.6X FOVC sensor when using a lense such as the 16-35. And issues of corner-to-corner sharpness, with the likes of a 16-35, when attached to a 1.6X FOVC sensor, "are" an issue; even if you don't think they are.
Looking forward to the release of side-by-side tests cause as a holder of a very fine 16-35 Mk I and a user of a 1.6X FOVC sensor, I eagerly look forward to better.
p.8 #10 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I'll have to take the "wait and see" approach on this one. My current 16-35 does excellent work. To upgrade to the Mk II I will need proof that it does something I can't do with the current generation and will justify the $600 or so it will cost me after selling the Mk I plus another $200 or so for a good ultra-thin 82mm CP.
So when I'm sure the MkII is $800 better than the Mark I, across the board, I'll upgrade.
p.8 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Asmodeus wrote:
I'll have to take the "wait and see" approach on this one. My current 16-35 does excellent work. To upgrade to the Mk II I will need proof that it does something I can't do with the current generation and will justify the $600 or so it will cost me after selling the Mk I plus another $200 or so for a good ultra-thin 82mm CP.
So when I'm sure the MkII is $800 better than the Mark I, across the board, I'll upgrade.
After the 50 f1.2 fiasco I'd wait on this one for proof too
p.8 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Currently I'm happy with a 15mm and 17-40 on my 5D. If I start shooting in low light (or win the lottery and upgrade to a 1DsMkIII) I'll also spring for the 16-35 MkII. And I won't flinch shelling out for a couple of quality 82mm filters, either. You wanna play, you gotta pay. Can't take it with you, and if I don't spend it, the wife will.
p.8 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
BeeMan458 wrote:
Looking forward to the release of side-by-side tests cause as a holder of a very fine 16-35 Mk I and a user of a 1.6X FOVC sensor, I eagerly look forward to better.
If you're so intent on having better image quality, and are willing to pay that much, why don't you spend the $400 on a tamron 17-50, and take a big step in quality, range, and weight, all for less than it would cost you to upgrade your 16-35? Or buy a FF to actually take advantage of the potential field of view of the new camera..
p.8 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I have pre-ordered this lens. There is no question or doubts in my mind that the Mk II will leave the original 16-35L in the dust. Like someone else pointed out, this upgrade is not marginal like the 85L II. I believe this is a major leap forward in IQ. It will be better in every aspect - less vignetting, less CA/distortion, better OOF/bokeh, better contrast, color, sharpness, resolution, etc. I was very unimpressed with the 16-35L that I had, and ended up replacing it with the 17-40L, which is just as good as the 16-35L, for half the price. I am guessing the Mk II will be as good as the 24L, but perhaps not as good as the 35L.
