Archive 2007 · •Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
p.1 #1•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Please post your hands-on experiences with the recently-released Canon EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM here. Now that the lens shipping, I figure it's a good time (albeit a bit late) to start a hands-on thread to compile relevant information in one place.
Please folks, try to keep this thread on topic and the idle 'chatter' to a minimum, so that the thread can hopefully become a valuable resource for those looking for real-world info on this lens, provided by those that actually own it. Feel free to include example images, 100% crops, and any relevant details about the lens that people may find useful.
Thanks!
Jeff
FM.com Moderator
Edited by Fred Miranda on Jun 07, 2007 at 10:14 PM GMT
Please folks, try to keep this thread on topic and the idle 'chatter' to a minimum, so that the thread can hopefully become a valuable resource for those looking for real-world info on this lens, provided by those that actually own it. Feel free to include example images, 100% crops, and any relevant details about the lens that people may find useful.
Thanks!
Jeff
FM.com Moderator
Edited by Fred Miranda on Jun 07, 2007 at 10:14 PM GMT
May 13, 2007 at 09:19 AM
p.1 #2•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
the 16-35L II put all of my corner sharpness fears to rest. i've never been a wide angle shooter but i'm learning. this is quickly becoming my favorite lens on the 1Ds2.
1Ds2, ISO200, 1/100th, 16mm, somewhere in utah along I-80:
http://www.hahr.com/outgoing/16-35-2.jpg
-erik
1Ds2, ISO200, 1/100th, 16mm, somewhere in utah along I-80:
http://www.hahr.com/outgoing/16-35-2.jpg
-erik
May 13, 2007 at 10:24 AM
p.1 #3•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I was in Hawaii last week and had a blast shooting with the 16-35mk2 and the 70-200/2.8IS. This isn't intended to be an in-depth review of the 16-35mk2 but I wanted to give you guys my feedback on how the lens performed. You can see some of the images here (click). All the ones taken between 16-35mm were with the 16-35mk2.
This shoot definitely tested the 16-35mk2 in terms of its build and image quality. Little did I know that I would drop the mk2 about 3 ft off the van seat onto bare concrete! It was a testament to the build quality of the mk2 since it survived barely unscathed with just a few minor nicks on the side. Both the front and back lens covers were on and so there were no scratches on the elements. Also, I tested it afterwards and it was still as sharp as when I first got it.
This little puppy also had to endure some salt sprays from the pounding waves on the coasts of the big island of Hawaii, shooting through salt sprays from a tossing tender boat and scattered showers every other day. Even with all this, the lens still performed beautifully.
As far as the operation of the lens is concerned, the focusing and zoom ring is buttery smooth even after the drop. Shooting in a 20-30mph wind with sub-zero temperatures at the summit of Haleakala, the lens worked like any other warm summer day.
Overall, I'm extremely happy with the lens and the images that I got. Doing a little bit of pixel-peeping, I'm getting near pixel-sharp in many of my images (when using a tripod) with the 30D and CA is nearly non-existent even in the toughest of conditions shooting sunsets/sunrise and the images speak for themselves.
If you don't already own a 16-35mk1, I think the mk2 will be an awesome lens to get if you can poney up the change for it.
This shoot definitely tested the 16-35mk2 in terms of its build and image quality. Little did I know that I would drop the mk2 about 3 ft off the van seat onto bare concrete! It was a testament to the build quality of the mk2 since it survived barely unscathed with just a few minor nicks on the side. Both the front and back lens covers were on and so there were no scratches on the elements. Also, I tested it afterwards and it was still as sharp as when I first got it.
This little puppy also had to endure some salt sprays from the pounding waves on the coasts of the big island of Hawaii, shooting through salt sprays from a tossing tender boat and scattered showers every other day. Even with all this, the lens still performed beautifully.
As far as the operation of the lens is concerned, the focusing and zoom ring is buttery smooth even after the drop. Shooting in a 20-30mph wind with sub-zero temperatures at the summit of Haleakala, the lens worked like any other warm summer day.
Overall, I'm extremely happy with the lens and the images that I got. Doing a little bit of pixel-peeping, I'm getting near pixel-sharp in many of my images (when using a tripod) with the 30D and CA is nearly non-existent even in the toughest of conditions shooting sunsets/sunrise and the images speak for themselves.
If you don't already own a 16-35mk1, I think the mk2 will be an awesome lens to get if you can poney up the change for it.
May 13, 2007 at 05:48 PM
p.1 #4•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
beewee.. you had some damn fine light on that trip.. really enjoyed your volcano and na pali coast.
May 13, 2007 at 09:34 PM
p.1 #5•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I am very pleased with the upgrade, and i have no desire to use my mk1 ever again.... now if i could pry that lens out of my wife's hands and toss it on here (or eBay), it'd be gone already.
Build is the same usual L quality, i like the new style of AF/MF switch (doesn't stick out, harder to accidentally bump). Focus is VERY quick and responsive, seems like it might actually have an upgraded motor.
Oh, and the optics.... It's no CZ21, but then again- nothing but the CZ21 is haha. I love it, and stopped down it more than pleases me on the ol' 5D. I highly reccomend it!
Got mine from www.newegg.com for $1470 IIRC.
Build is the same usual L quality, i like the new style of AF/MF switch (doesn't stick out, harder to accidentally bump). Focus is VERY quick and responsive, seems like it might actually have an upgraded motor.
Oh, and the optics.... It's no CZ21, but then again- nothing but the CZ21 is haha. I love it, and stopped down it more than pleases me on the ol' 5D. I highly reccomend it!
Got mine from www.newegg.com for $1470 IIRC.
May 13, 2007 at 10:38 PM
p.1 #6•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
floris wrote:
beewee.. you had some damn fine light on that trip.. really enjoyed your volcano and na pali coast.
Thanks, the Na Pali coast was actually very hazy and it took a lot of work in post processing to get it looking nice.
This is actually very close to what it looked like as we got to the Na Pali coast. I used a lot of similar techniques that I've learned in remote sensing and enhancement techiques used for processing satellite images.
In fact, here's a before and after with some image enhancements on one of the Na Pali coast images. The information (light intensity and color) is there but there's a lot of noise in the image, not in the pixel value variance people associate with sensor noise, but noise in the sense of unwanted data that did not add information to the eye when looking at the image.
Edited by beewee on May 13, 2007 at 09:57 PM GMT
beewee.. you had some damn fine light on that trip.. really enjoyed your volcano and na pali coast.
Thanks, the Na Pali coast was actually very hazy and it took a lot of work in post processing to get it looking nice.
 |
||
| https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~bcwchan/Public/Hawaii%202007/bin/images/small/_MG_3489.jpg | ||
|
In fact, here's a before and after with some image enhancements on one of the Na Pali coast images. The information (light intensity and color) is there but there's a lot of noise in the image, not in the pixel value variance people associate with sensor noise, but noise in the sense of unwanted data that did not add information to the eye when looking at the image.
|
||
| https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~bcwchan/Public/Hawaii%202007/_MG_3539-2.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~bcwchan/Public/Hawaii%202007/_MG_3539-1.jpg | ||
|
Edited by beewee on May 13, 2007 at 09:57 PM GMT
May 13, 2007 at 10:49 PM
p.1 #7•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I'm pretty satisfied with the lens so far, but have not had it long enough to do enough of an evaluation. Here's one from banff from a few weeks back. I was hoping to use it more, but the location i was planning to use it at was to windy (for a decent reflection). I ended up using the 24-105L for the majority of the sunet.
Here is one shot at aroud 26-28mm with the 16-35L II.
Here is one shot at aroud 26-28mm with the 16-35L II.
May 13, 2007 at 10:54 PM
p.1 #8•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
khurram1 wrote:
I'm pretty satisfied with the lens so far, but have not had it long enough to do enough of an evaluation. Here's one from banff from a few weeks back. I was hoping to use it more, but the location i was planning to use it at was to windy (for a decent reflection). I ended up using the 24-105L for the majority of the sunet.
Here is one shot at aroud 26-28mm with the 16-35L II.
khurram1, did you end up getting the full moon shots you wanted?
I'm pretty satisfied with the lens so far, but have not had it long enough to do enough of an evaluation. Here's one from banff from a few weeks back. I was hoping to use it more, but the location i was planning to use it at was to windy (for a decent reflection). I ended up using the 24-105L for the majority of the sunet.
Here is one shot at aroud 26-28mm with the 16-35L II.
khurram1, did you end up getting the full moon shots you wanted?
May 13, 2007 at 10:59 PM
p.1 #9•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
NO complaints so far. While I have a very good copy of the 17-40 and have made many a 20x30 fine art gallery print from it, the new 16-35II appears to be just a bit sharper, as one would expect, in the corners and edges. It's lighter than I thought. Handles nicely. I'm definitely keeping it. See for yourself . . .
May 13, 2007 at 11:51 PM
p.1 #10•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
beewee wrote:
Here is one shot at aroud 26-28mm with the 16-35L II.khurram1, did you end up getting the full moon shots you wanted?
No, i couldn't get out of town last month for the full moon. I'm trying to plan for later this month and June for sure. Hopefully i'll have the 1DIII by then
khurram1 wrote
I'm pretty satisfied with the lens so far, but have not had it long enough to do enough of an evaluation. Here's one from banff from a few weeks back. I was hoping to use it more, but the location i was planning to use it at was to windy (for a decent reflection). I ended up using the 24-105L for the majority of the sunet.Here is one shot at aroud 26-28mm with the 16-35L II.
No, i couldn't get out of town last month for the full moon. I'm trying to plan for later this month and June for sure. Hopefully i'll have the 1DIII by then
May 14, 2007 at 08:05 AM
p.1 #11•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
D. von Briesen wrote:
NO complaints so far. While I have a very good copy of the 17-40 and have made many a 20x30 fine art gallery print from it, the new 16-35II appears to be just a bit sharper, as one would expect, in the corners and edges. It's lighter than I thought. Handles nicely. I'm definitely keeping it. See for yourself . . .
The bottom right hand corner of the first shot looks VERY impressive.
I've got to get out to Havasu!!!!
NO complaints so far. While I have a very good copy of the 17-40 and have made many a 20x30 fine art gallery print from it, the new 16-35II appears to be just a bit sharper, as one would expect, in the corners and edges. It's lighter than I thought. Handles nicely. I'm definitely keeping it. See for yourself . . .
The bottom right hand corner of the first shot looks VERY impressive.
I've got to get out to Havasu!!!!
May 14, 2007 at 08:11 AM
p.1 #12•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
D. von Briesen wrote:
NO complaints so far. While I have a very good copy of the 17-40 and have made many a 20x30 fine art gallery print from it, the new 16-35II appears to be just a bit sharper, as one would expect, in the corners and edges. It's lighter than I thought. Handles nicely. I'm definitely keeping it. See for yourself . . .
Beautiful Scenic Shots, Derek....Excellent!!
NO complaints so far. While I have a very good copy of the 17-40 and have made many a 20x30 fine art gallery print from it, the new 16-35II appears to be just a bit sharper, as one would expect, in the corners and edges. It's lighter than I thought. Handles nicely. I'm definitely keeping it. See for yourself . . .
Beautiful Scenic Shots, Derek....Excellent!!
May 14, 2007 at 08:53 AM
p.1 #13•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I love mine. It's a great improvement from the 16-35L MK1, which I got rid of as soon as the 17-40 came out. If you want to see my garage door shot with all three lenses for comparison
http://dpr.jirman.com/wides/
Note that the EXIF is off on the 16mm end, the 1Ds2 had apparently a brain fart.
So far no landscapes from me yet, but babies can be fun, too
http://rachel.jirman.com/2007-04-08/0068-b.jpg
Edited by stanj on May 15, 2007 at 12:34 PM GMT
http://dpr.jirman.com/wides/
Note that the EXIF is off on the 16mm end, the 1Ds2 had apparently a brain fart.
So far no landscapes from me yet, but babies can be fun, too
http://rachel.jirman.com/2007-04-08/0068-b.jpg
Edited by stanj on May 15, 2007 at 12:34 PM GMT
May 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM
p.1 #14•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Those waterfall shots look amazing!
Khurram, if you want the moonrise/fall times and what not, PM me sometime and I'll give you the details when I get a chance.
Khurram, if you want the moonrise/fall times and what not, PM me sometime and I'll give you the details when I get a chance.
May 14, 2007 at 09:18 PM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.1 #15•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=114&Camera=9&LensComp=412
Do a comparison between the old and new
Do a comparison between the old and new
May 15, 2007 at 01:12 AM
p.1 #16•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
.
To judge from the test charts mrclark321 linked,
the Mk2 lens seems to have noticeably less barrel distortion than the Mk1.
Has this been the experience of those who have owned both lenses?
.
To judge from the test charts mrclark321 linked,
the Mk2 lens seems to have noticeably less barrel distortion than the Mk1.
Has this been the experience of those who have owned both lenses?
.
May 15, 2007 at 06:35 AM
p.1 #17•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I havent owned the mk II, but the digital picture ISO charts show it's telephoto end to be worse than the mk I?
-A
-A
May 15, 2007 at 07:16 AM
p.1 #18•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
how's the bokeh? say 35mm, human subject, 2-4 feet, f2.8. something like this:
http://andyradin.com/3%20-%20Photoblog/2006%2005-28%20-%20Memorial%20Day%20backpacking,%20Sequoia%20National%20Park%20CA/slides/IMG_8395.jpg
(17-40, 35mm, f4, ugly bokeh)
http://andyradin.com/3%20-%20Photoblog/2006%2005-28%20-%20Memorial%20Day%20backpacking,%20Sequoia%20National%20Park%20CA/slides/IMG_8395.jpg
(17-40, 35mm, f4, ugly bokeh)
May 15, 2007 at 04:47 PM
p.1 #19•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Nice landscapes in this thread.
I haven't seen many negative impressions of the Mark II, but here's one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=23232922
I haven't seen many negative impressions of the Mark II, but here's one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=23232922
May 15, 2007 at 05:11 PM
p.1 #20•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Sounds pretty credible.
dcmiller wrote:
Nice landscapes in this thread.
I haven't seen many negative impressions of the Mark II, but here's one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=23232922
dcmiller wrote:
Nice landscapes in this thread.
I haven't seen many negative impressions of the Mark II, but here's one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=23232922
May 15, 2007 at 09:54 PM