p.10 #1 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
bobbytan wrote: I don't know squat about optics either but this makes a lot of sense. Besides, Canon would not release this Mk II version if the IQ improvements are only marginal. They are well aware of the fact that we have been bitching and moaning for years about the unsatisfactory quality of most of their wide angle lenses, and that many Canon users have resorted to using Leica, Zeiss, Olympus and even Nikon w/a angle lenses on their Canon bodies. This is very possibly the best UWA zoom lens ever made!
I do agree that this could possibly be the finest ultra wide angle ever produced , for one a ground and polished element is great plus the other two are okay, and going from a 77mm to 82mm hopefully that will keep the imaging circle away from the crud on the edges when used with FF
p.10 #2 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
CMOS wrote:
I agree. From the MTF's, the most improvement is had at the wide end when stopped down (f/8, in the case of the MTF chart).
I look forward to some serious new vs old comparisons once the lens is available!
Given that the old lens needs to be stopped down a good deal at 16 mm, this is significant to me. If the real-world tests prove positive, I'll be getting one.
p.10 #4 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Look at pics of the front of this lens and you will see that the lens itself is a lot smaller in diameter than the barrel housing... the 82mm width of the end is due to an intentionally flared barrel housing. I believe this was done to allow a non-vignetting polarizer or other filter to be used. If I understand, the diameter of the glass is what sets the max aperture of the lens, more or less, and so 2.8 is 2.8, ie, no change in diameter from the original.
p.10 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
I was curious when i saw they announced the mkII version, but to be perfectly honest i never felt that the 16-35 was lacking for what it was. I got my hands on a brand new one for a great price, and for what I would need/want it for it's perfect.
I'll be interested to see how the new one performs, but I certainly don't mind slapping the mkI on my 1DmkII or my 5D.
p.10 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
10DFT wrote:
Thanks for going through the trouble of superimposing the MTF charts. It appears that the difference wide open is quite significant after all!
No trouble at all... If I said I disagree *without* the picture, It could have taken 4 pages of discussion to make my point clear.
p.10 #7 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Recently I attempted to buy a 16-35/2.8 lens. From four (!) copies of the lens three were more or less dogs, only one exceeded my ancient 20-35/2.8 in both center and corner sharpness. Talk about sample variation.
16-35 is for sure better in contrast, color (20-35 is bit warmish) and distortion department than 20-35. Comparable light fall off between in 24-35 range (less at 20).
Still not quite what I hoped it would be, I was close to keeping it, but since I read about the mk II version, back to store it went. I really hope the new version performs.
p.10 #8 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
If you think the sample variation is great on the "newer" copies of the 16-35/2.8, the older version really suck. I looked at 3 of the older ones, and they were all bad - contrast was very bad and for some reason they under-expose. The quality seemed to have improved significantly in 2006 but I don't think it's any better than the 17-40.
The Mk II had better be good, or I may jump ship and go with a "near-FF" Nikon D3 with the new Zeiss lenses in the F-mount!
unclemat wrote:
Recently I attempted to buy a 16-35/2.8 lens. From four (!) copies of the lens three were more or less dogs, only one exceeded my ancient 20-35/2.8 in both center and corner sharpness. Talk about sample variation.
16-35 is for sure better in contrast, color (20-35 is bit warmish) and distortion department than 20-35. Comparable light fall off between in 24-35 range (less at 20).
Still not quite what I hoped it would be, I was close to keeping it, but since I read about the mk II version, back to store it went. I really hope the new version performs.
p.10 #9 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Good luck with Zeiss ZF and near FF Nikon D3. Even if Nikon introduces a near FF D3 (pure speculation), the Zeiss ZF 25mm was out performed by the Canon 24mm f/1.4L in the 16-9.net shoot out.
p.10 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
well, Canon's L primes are excellent, but Zeiss F is not Germany zeiss ... it is made in japan ... I would never buy one becouse it has only name common with orignal zeiss
p.10 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
The incomparable Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 lens was also made in Japan, like 20 years ago. OK, maybe it was made by Yashica and its now contracted to someone else - but the Japanese do know how to make lenses, and the Germans do know how to design them.
execom99 wrote:
well, Canon's L primes are excellent, but Zeiss F is not Germany zeiss ... it is made in japan ... I would never buy one becouse it has only name common with orignal zeiss
p.10 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
If Canon can make some decent wide-angle lenses, none of us will be looking at "exotic glass". The truth of the matter is, most Canon w/a lenses cannot match other Japanese lenses like Zeiss, Olympus and Nikon. We are not even talking about Leica here.
Hopefully the 16-35/2.8L II will change that. We will find out soon enough.
p.10 #17 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"If Canon can make some decent wide-angle lenses, none of us will be looking at "exotic glass"."
I guess I'll go over to the exotic forum and complain about how happy I am with Canon's 35L or why it is I'll never trade my 28-70L for an exotic; ever.
There's a reason I won't do it, because it's not a Canon forum even though folks use Canon bodies. They could equally be using a Nikon, Pentex, Sigma or Yashica; fill in your body of choice. I'm at the point that I'm going need therapy just to keep me from hurling because this refrain about Canon and their lenses is so over used and out of place for this thread.
Okay world, Canon makes garbage WA lenses! Let's all go to our roof tops and shout in unison; "Canon makes "garbage" WA glass." We got it! Grrrrr! mad: Enough already!
The thread heading is about the 16-35 II, it's not a thread about laying everbodies dissatisfaction with Canon glass on the screen for all to suffer through.
Love exotics, hate Canon WA glass! I got it!
Please, moderator, can you tell people to take their whine in regard to Canon WA glass to the exotics board?
I want to come to this thread and read what folks have to say about the 16-35II as the heading suggests. I don't care what folks think about the "ole," last months model or what they think of their exotic glass. Again, love your exotics, hate Canon WA glass, I'm good but please, keep comments to an appropriate thread, not a sticky thread of this nature for that's taking advantage of the thread and forcing everybody to have to wade through comments of dissatisfaction with Canon's "past" lense designs.
We got it, Canon makes sucky WA glass. Have I said it enough? Is anybody getting sick of reading this point yet?
If someone wishes to complain about the WA garbage Canon makes for glass, they should start a thread with that heading; "Why I'm so mad at Canon for the WA garbage they "force" on us." I promise not to click on the link and everybody can write Canon, all day long, about how dissatisfied they are with Canon's glass design. If you wish, I'll even start the thread.
I think that's a reasonable request and won't mess with the "integrity" of the thread heading or prevent anyone from voicing their concerns with Canon's unresponsive nature towards consumer's needs for decent WA lenses.
p.10 #18 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
BeeMan458 wrote:
"If Canon can make some decent wide-angle lenses, none of us will be looking at "exotic glass"."
I guess I'll go over to the exotic forum and complain about how happy I am with Canon's 35L or why it is I'll never trade my 28-70L for an exotic; ever.
There's a reason I won't do it, because it's not a Canon forum even though folks use Canon bodies. They could equally be using a Nikon, Pentex, Sigma or Yashica; fill in your body of choice. I'm at the point that I'm going need therapy just to keep me from hurling because this refrain about Canon and their lenses is so over used and out of place for this thread.
Okay world, Canon makes garbage WA lenses! Let's all go to our roof tops and shout in unison; "Canon makes "garbage" WA glass." We got it! Grrrrr! mad: Enough already!
The thread heading is about the 16-35 II, it's not a thread about laying everbodies dissatisfaction with Canon glass on the screen for all to suffer through.
Love exotics, hate Canon WA glass! I got it!
Please, moderator, can you tell people to take their whine in regard to Canon WA glass to the exotics board?
I want to come to this thread and read what folks have to say about the 16-35II as the heading suggests. I don't care what folks think about the "ole," last months model or what they think of their exotic glass. Again, love your exotics, hate Canon WA glass, I'm good but please, keep comments to an appropriate thread, not a sticky thread of this nature for that's taking advantage of the thread and forcing everybody to have to wade through comments of dissatisfaction with Canon's "past" lense designs.
We got it, Canon makes sucky WA glass. Have I said it enough? Is anybody getting sick of reading this point yet?
If someone wishes to complain about the WA garbage Canon makes for glass, they should start a thread with that heading; "Why I'm so mad at Canon for the WA garbage they "force" on us." I promise not to click on the link and everybody can write Canon, all day long, about how dissatisfied they are with Canon's glass design. If you wish, I'll even start the thread.
I think that's a reasonable request and won't mess with the "integrity" of the thread heading or prevent anyone from voicing their concerns with Canon's unresponsive nature towards consumer's needs for decent WA lenses....Show more →
p.10 #19 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Ha! Go Tom! Yes, I was surprised too, when the trhead turned back to CZ... grrr. I happen to like auto focus, so that's that. And re: conventional wisdom, take a look at 16:9 or 9:16, whatever it is, and look at the 24mm shoot out... the frequently here maligned Canon L 1.4 wins as the best 24mm in the world... well wadayaknow about conventional wisdom?
