Archive 2007 · •Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
p.2 #1•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
bokeh?
i think this is more of that "harsh" bokeh some people fear so much.
i don't have any better examples yet, but i'll try and hook you up, Andy.
May 16, 2007 at 05:05 AM
p.2 #2•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
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
There have been a couple people on this Forum complain of Center Softness in the mark II from 24mm-35mm. So I have heard this a few times now.
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
There have been a couple people on this Forum complain of Center Softness in the mark II from 24mm-35mm. So I have heard this a few times now.
May 16, 2007 at 07:08 AM
p.2 #3•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
The lens is clearly optimized at the wide end. Which end is the 17-40 best? Has there been a comparison of the new lens with the 17-40.
May 16, 2007 at 07:16 AM
p.2 #4•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I haven't noticed any softness on the long end. Heres one at 27mm with a little bokeh.
small jpeg out of camera
http://www.pbase.com/wade_abbey/image/78877423/original
small jpeg out of camera
http://www.pbase.com/wade_abbey/image/78877423/original
May 16, 2007 at 07:26 AM
p.2 #5•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Looks plenty sharp, though I think that the bokeh would be somewhat smoother if stopped down 1/3 or 2/3 stops. A lot of lenses gain a "hard" edge to the OOF highlights wide open, but smooth out when the aperture is narrowed just a bit.
May 16, 2007 at 07:42 AM
p.2 #6•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
heres an f4
http://upload.pbase.com/image/78879117/original
http://upload.pbase.com/image/78879117/original
May 16, 2007 at 07:57 AM
p.2 #7•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
This is from the old thread, it still stands...
1. Flare, the old 16-35 is prone to it but not excessively so. The new one is outstanding, takes a lot to flare it.
2. At 2.8 vignetting is actually about 1/2 stop better on the old 16-35 in the very corners at 16mm. I tried it in many circumstances and it was pretty consistent. The area that has the fall off is the same, but about 1/2 way through the darkness, it falls of quickly on the new one. But at around F 5.0 the new lens cleans up and it takes the old one till about 6.3 to be at the same place.
3. Faster than F/11, the new 16-35 shows what you are paying for. By the time you are at 2.8, the new lens is about two stops ahead of the old one at 16mm, simply crushes the old one, near or infinity focus. This effect lessens to about a 1 stop improvement at 35mm but is still there. Along with near-zero flare, the overall improvment in sharpness is the most impressive thing to me about the new 16-35-II.
4. CA is much improved on the new lens at all apertures and focal lengths. This has been one of the tough things about the old lens for me as my clients need images for large ads and even murals. I might actually be able to do ultra wide aerial work with this lens now.
Overall, the new 16-35 is very much worth it for me. I don't think we can really do too much better for the money. This is a 2.8 ultra-wide zoom, it is clearly usable at 2.8 at any zoom setting. If you are *only* concerned about blowing away the 17-40 at infinity for landscapes in which you are at F/11-F/22, keep your 17-40, this is not the lens for you and you will save nearly a grand.
1. Flare, the old 16-35 is prone to it but not excessively so. The new one is outstanding, takes a lot to flare it.
2. At 2.8 vignetting is actually about 1/2 stop better on the old 16-35 in the very corners at 16mm. I tried it in many circumstances and it was pretty consistent. The area that has the fall off is the same, but about 1/2 way through the darkness, it falls of quickly on the new one. But at around F 5.0 the new lens cleans up and it takes the old one till about 6.3 to be at the same place.
3. Faster than F/11, the new 16-35 shows what you are paying for. By the time you are at 2.8, the new lens is about two stops ahead of the old one at 16mm, simply crushes the old one, near or infinity focus. This effect lessens to about a 1 stop improvement at 35mm but is still there. Along with near-zero flare, the overall improvment in sharpness is the most impressive thing to me about the new 16-35-II.
4. CA is much improved on the new lens at all apertures and focal lengths. This has been one of the tough things about the old lens for me as my clients need images for large ads and even murals. I might actually be able to do ultra wide aerial work with this lens now.
Overall, the new 16-35 is very much worth it for me. I don't think we can really do too much better for the money. This is a 2.8 ultra-wide zoom, it is clearly usable at 2.8 at any zoom setting. If you are *only* concerned about blowing away the 17-40 at infinity for landscapes in which you are at F/11-F/22, keep your 17-40, this is not the lens for you and you will save nearly a grand.
May 16, 2007 at 08:53 AM
p.2 #8•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Film_ruled, your experience mirrors mine in general.
Ward, looks like the f/4 shot bokeh smooths out quite a bit. No more hard edges on the out-of-focus highlight disks.
Ward, looks like the f/4 shot bokeh smooths out quite a bit. No more hard edges on the out-of-focus highlight disks.
May 16, 2007 at 11:01 AM
p.2 #9•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Film_Ruled wrote:
This is from the old thread, it still stands...
1. Flare, the old 16-35 is prone to it but not excessively so. The new one is outstanding, takes a lot to flare it.
2. At 2.8 vignetting is actually about 1/2 stop better on the old 16-35 in the very corners at 16mm. I tried it in many circumstances and it was pretty consistent. The area that has the fall off is the same, but about 1/2 way through the darkness, it falls of quickly on the new one. But at around F 5.0 the new lens cleans up and it takes...Show more →
Unfortunately I have not been so lucky. I have yet to see better than Mark I performance in the two lenses I've tested. The first had horrible corner sharpness unless intentionally back focused, but then of course, the subject in the center would be out of focus. The second lens was good on the right side, but soft on the left side. And not just soft at 2.8, but all the way through about 8.
From what I see when the Mark II does produce sharp corners, a properly assembled lens should be an excellent performer. I just have to find one first...
This is from the old thread, it still stands...
1. Flare, the old 16-35 is prone to it but not excessively so. The new one is outstanding, takes a lot to flare it.
2. At 2.8 vignetting is actually about 1/2 stop better on the old 16-35 in the very corners at 16mm. I tried it in many circumstances and it was pretty consistent. The area that has the fall off is the same, but about 1/2 way through the darkness, it falls of quickly on the new one. But at around F 5.0 the new lens cleans up and it takes...Show more →
Unfortunately I have not been so lucky. I have yet to see better than Mark I performance in the two lenses I've tested. The first had horrible corner sharpness unless intentionally back focused, but then of course, the subject in the center would be out of focus. The second lens was good on the right side, but soft on the left side. And not just soft at 2.8, but all the way through about 8.
From what I see when the Mark II does produce sharp corners, a properly assembled lens should be an excellent performer. I just have to find one first...
May 16, 2007 at 05:53 PM
p.2 #10•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
i just got an email from Singh-Ray today, stating that on June 1, they provide pricing and will produce at least three 82mm filters as result of 16-35L II owners requests. The filters I know of are the Color combo polarizer, the Vari-ND and Warming Polarizer. I had already pre-ordered the Vari ND and Color combo polarizer.
Anyone interested should contact them, as they are ordering limited parts for now for their 82mm filter size.
Anyone interested should contact them, as they are ordering limited parts for now for their 82mm filter size.
May 16, 2007 at 09:45 PM
p.2 #11•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
A real brick and mortar store is offering me a grey market 16-35L II for US$1,436.60 with store warranty. Is this a good deal?
May 18, 2007 at 12:01 AM
p.2 #12•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Paolo Pena wrote:
A real brick and mortar store is offering me a grey market 16-35L II for US$1,436.60 with store warranty. Is this a good deal?
I just paid $1470 or so for a 16-35L II, USA retail version, from newegg.com, including 3 day shipping. I am a little leery of grey market. I have had very good experiences with newegg, though mostly with computer gear (did buy a 20D kit from them a while back too). OTOH, you have a local store to go back to.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830998076
A real brick and mortar store is offering me a grey market 16-35L II for US$1,436.60 with store warranty. Is this a good deal?
I just paid $1470 or so for a 16-35L II, USA retail version, from newegg.com, including 3 day shipping. I am a little leery of grey market. I have had very good experiences with newegg, though mostly with computer gear (did buy a 20D kit from them a while back too). OTOH, you have a local store to go back to.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830998076
May 18, 2007 at 05:24 AM
p.2 #13•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Ok, I received the 16-35L Mk II from Amazon today to use with my 5D, and shot some natural light photos at f/2.8 at the long end because that is where I read it does not do that well. I then took it out to take some landscape shots at a local waterfall before it got dark. I will post my landscape shots later. Here are crops from my candid shots around the house (at high ISO to avoid using flash). A huge benefit to me of being able to use this lens over the 17-40L is that there is no way I could have taken these shots with the 17-40L unless I used ISO1600, 3200 or flash. While I read some posts from people saying that at the long end the lens was not resolving facial features very well, I wasn't too disappointed (but it's no 35L). Mind you, I don't make my living from photography and am not as demanding as some. I am not going to praise or denigrate this lens much at this point since I haven't used it enough to make a fair evaluation, but wanted to provide some crops for you all to take a look at.
The following were all taken at the 35mm focal length. The lighting conditions were a mix of daylight and tungsten so the WB was hard to get right. I converted them from RAW in Lightroom with no additional sharpening or post-processing besides WB and exposure tweaks.
f/2.8 at ISO 800:
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p134618536.jpg
f/3.2 at ISO 800:
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p377530905.jpg
Regards,
Peter
Edited by petermendelson on May 19, 2007 at 08:19 PM GMT
The following were all taken at the 35mm focal length. The lighting conditions were a mix of daylight and tungsten so the WB was hard to get right. I converted them from RAW in Lightroom with no additional sharpening or post-processing besides WB and exposure tweaks.
f/2.8 at ISO 800:
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p134618536.jpg
f/3.2 at ISO 800:
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p377530905.jpg
Regards,
Peter
Edited by petermendelson on May 19, 2007 at 08:19 PM GMT
May 18, 2007 at 07:56 PM
p.2 #14•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Anyone who is thinking about buying the new 16-35mm should read this post from a pro first. There may be some problems with this lens:
"The lens is superior at 20mm and below, but at 24 to 35 it goes to all degrees of softness. Looks to me like someone smeared vaseline on the lens"
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=23232922
And here are some highly satisfied customers:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=23081304
"The lens is superior at 20mm and below, but at 24 to 35 it goes to all degrees of softness. Looks to me like someone smeared vaseline on the lens"
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=23232922
And here are some highly satisfied customers:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=23081304
May 19, 2007 at 02:51 AM
p.2 #15•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Mine is beautiful, long and short.
http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/san_francisco_bay
http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/san_francisco_bay
May 19, 2007 at 03:00 AM
p.2 #16•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Digitaljoe, does it look like Vaseline was smeared on my lens? Pro or not, I think my crops above aren't too bad considering they are wide open at 35mm at high ISO handheld. Perhaps there is copy to copy variation with this lens? I agree that some of the crops posted by a couple of people critical of this lens did not look so good.
The landscapes I took yesterday were very sharp edge to edge and looked just like my 35L when stopped down a biy - I will try to make time to post them later.
Peter
The landscapes I took yesterday were very sharp edge to edge and looked just like my 35L when stopped down a biy - I will try to make time to post them later.
Peter
May 19, 2007 at 06:21 AM
p.2 #17•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Hmm, I just went out and made two shots out my window of the same landscape at 1/400s f/8 ISO100 with a 5D, one shot with the 16-35L II @ 35mm and the second with my 35L. Viewing them in PS CS2 on two identical calibrated monitors at 100%, I can't see any difference between the two.
Kinda worries me...
Kinda worries me...
May 19, 2007 at 06:55 AM
p.2 #18•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
John - that's exactly what I did yesterday - shot a landscape with my 16-35LII at 35mm, then substituted my 35L with the exact same framing and settings, and then compared them at 100% in Lightroom using the compare tool and there were no discernable differences anywhere in the frame.
Peter
Peter
May 19, 2007 at 07:09 AM
p.2 #19•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
petermendelson wrote:
John - that's exactly what I did yesterday - shot a landscape with my 16-35LII at 35mm, then substituted my 35L with the exact same framing and settings, and then compared them at 100% in Lightroom using the compare tool and there were no discernable differences anywhere in the frame.
Peter
Thanks for the confirmation Peter, now I can breath easy again.
...so much for pixel peeping and thanks to Canon for delivering the goods again.
John - that's exactly what I did yesterday - shot a landscape with my 16-35LII at 35mm, then substituted my 35L with the exact same framing and settings, and then compared them at 100% in Lightroom using the compare tool and there were no discernable differences anywhere in the frame.
Peter
Thanks for the confirmation Peter, now I can breath easy again.
...so much for pixel peeping and thanks to Canon for delivering the goods again.
May 19, 2007 at 07:43 AM
p.2 #20•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
digitaljoe wrote:
Anyone who is thinking about buying the new 16-35mm should read this post from a pro first. There may be some problems with this lens:
do you not think there are pros who post here on FM?
i'm happy with my 16-35L II at both ends and so are my clients. at f/2.8 it's sharp in the center at every focal length. corners are sharp by f/8~f/16 depending on focal length. i have an exemplary copy and am keeping it for sure.
mirroring what john and peter have said above, my 16-35L II rivals my 35L and if i did not need what the 35L provides then it would be gone.
-erik
Anyone who is thinking about buying the new 16-35mm should read this post from a pro first. There may be some problems with this lens:
do you not think there are pros who post here on FM?
i'm happy with my 16-35L II at both ends and so are my clients. at f/2.8 it's sharp in the center at every focal length. corners are sharp by f/8~f/16 depending on focal length. i have an exemplary copy and am keeping it for sure.
mirroring what john and peter have said above, my 16-35L II rivals my 35L and if i did not need what the 35L provides then it would be gone.
-erik
May 19, 2007 at 08:19 AM