Archive 2007 · •Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
p.3 #1•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Here are two shots from my first outing with this lens last evening, both taken at f/16.
This one was taken at 16mm and cropped on the top to give it more of a panorama feel:
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p135927626-5.jpg
This one was taken at 35mm, no cropping:
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p462777387-5.jpg
Peter
This one was taken at 16mm and cropped on the top to give it more of a panorama feel:
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p135927626-5.jpg
This one was taken at 35mm, no cropping:
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p462777387-5.jpg
Peter
May 19, 2007 at 10:13 AM
p.3 #2•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I like that first shot! Beautiful tonal variations.
May 19, 2007 at 11:51 AM
p.3 #3•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Thank you. Here are three more from yesterday (the middle one was taken with the 70-200 f/4 IS and the other two with the 16-35L mkII):
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p341722839-5.jpg
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p323785003-5.jpg
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p318811452-5.jpg
I don't have a polarizer yet for the 16-35L but just bought one on eBay...
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p341722839-5.jpg
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p323785003-5.jpg
http://petermendelson.zenfolio.com/img/p318811452-5.jpg
I don't have a polarizer yet for the 16-35L but just bought one on eBay...
May 19, 2007 at 12:02 PM
p.3 #5•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Dear Peter,
You have shone us some beautiful pictures; I am certainly impressed with your photographic abilities and with the lens (and with your very beautiful daughter?!).
What camera did you use? I looked in your profile and saw that you own a 5D?
Yours,
Henry
You have shone us some beautiful pictures; I am certainly impressed with your photographic abilities and with the lens (and with your very beautiful daughter?!).
What camera did you use? I looked in your profile and saw that you own a 5D?
Yours,
Henry
May 19, 2007 at 04:59 PM
p.3 #6•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Yes, I use a 5D. The landscape shots were taken on a Gitzo CF tripod with the RRS BH55 ballhead with mirror lockup.
Thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Peter
May 19, 2007 at 05:31 PM
p.3 #7•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Peter,
Excellent photography. Beautiful pictures.
Jim
Excellent photography. Beautiful pictures.
Jim
May 19, 2007 at 07:04 PM
p.3 #8•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Thanks very much. I didn't have a polarizer for the 16-35L yet, so I took a lot of shots at f/16 or even f/22 to get sufficiently long exposure times for the flowing water look. I was comparing shots taken at f/8, f/11, f/16 and f/22 to see where diffraction effects would kick in. While there wasn't a large difference between f/22 and f/16, I did prefer f/16 slightly, and I saw no real difference between f/11 and f/16. I also tried ISO50 for the heck of it to get longer exposure times, but I definitely saw an improvement going from ISO50 to ISO100 (what appears to be a greater range of tones), so I will only use ISO50 if I absolutely need it. I used Lightroom to convert to B&W, which does a great job. I have bought and used various plug-ins for converting to B&W, but I am happy sticking with Lightroom for now. I also applied some contrast enhancement.
Peter
Peter
May 19, 2007 at 07:17 PM
p.3 #9•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
After following a dp thread concerning with sharpness of eyelash detail at 35mm 5.6 I went a little mental shooting tests of my family. I've got another week to decide whether I'm keeping this beauty. Anyhow you can sense the exasperation on my daughter's face. I've posted a full frame then 100% crop of her eye detail shot at 35mm f5.6 with bounce flash.
full frame
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5985850-lg.jpg
eye detail 100% crop (from raw, no sharpening)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5985837-lg.jpg
and an available light full frame 16mm f4.0 1/50 iso800
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5985823-lg.jpg
excellent corner detail and little light fall-off
and just for fun, a quirky street style grab at 35mm f4.0 1/500 iso100, slightly cropped for effect.
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5980105-lg.jpg
Hope you like. I think I'll be keeping mine.
Peter
full frame
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5985850-lg.jpg
eye detail 100% crop (from raw, no sharpening)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5985837-lg.jpg
and an available light full frame 16mm f4.0 1/50 iso800
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5985823-lg.jpg
excellent corner detail and little light fall-off
and just for fun, a quirky street style grab at 35mm f4.0 1/500 iso100, slightly cropped for effect.
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5980105-lg.jpg
Hope you like. I think I'll be keeping mine.
Peter
May 19, 2007 at 08:54 PM
p.3 #10•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I know, I know I didn't put the hood on, I know I left the UV (B+W MRC) on, but I wasn't really expecting this. Anyone has similar result from this beautiful 16-35 II?
This was taken at 16mm, F22
http://www.dcdc.ca/forum/uploads/post-2-1179622020.jpg
This was taken at 16mm, F22
http://www.dcdc.ca/forum/uploads/post-2-1179622020.jpg
May 19, 2007 at 10:36 PM
p.3 #11•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I have had two copies of the 16-35 II lens and compared it to my version I, which I tried 3 copies and picked the one I have now. My version I was decent at the wider end. When I compared to the II lenses, I was disappointed with both copies of the II. I shot a wood fench with plants just in front on a tripod and did a number of comparisons. I used center point focusing and tried the tests both on the 1Dsmk2 and 5D. Although i did more with the former. My conclusion: At the wide end the version II was better at the wider apertures especially in the corners and at the edges. There was a slight improvement in distortion and CA. However by f8, the differences in image sharpness were marginal and in some parts of the image, I thought the version I lens was still better. At 24-35, the version I lens was better throughout at f4 and above with the exception of CA, which was still better on version II. In the end, I decided to keep my I lens and return the II lenses. THe price differential was not justified by any means at least for me. In some cases, the better image quality with version I at some of the tele focal ranges took away any improvement I saw at the wider focal ranges.
May 20, 2007 at 12:33 AM
p.3 #12•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I'm liking it. Went walking with it yesterday.
May 20, 2007 at 05:45 AM
p.3 #13•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
beautiful photo of the bridge. what body are you using?
May 20, 2007 at 05:47 AM
p.3 #14•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Paolo Pena wrote:
beautiful photo of the bridge. what body are you using?
5D
beautiful photo of the bridge. what body are you using?
5D
May 20, 2007 at 06:06 AM
p.3 #15•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/222/513229775_618a589ccb_b.jpg
I've been shooting mine non-stop since the day it showed up, and i love it. Not as big of an improvement over the mk1 when stopped down, but it is better wide open... I, like some others, am fairly sure that the mk1 is a stronger performer at the "tele" end of 35mm- but i don't have the mk1 w/ me here to do comparisons.
I've been shooting mine non-stop since the day it showed up, and i love it. Not as big of an improvement over the mk1 when stopped down, but it is better wide open... I, like some others, am fairly sure that the mk1 is a stronger performer at the "tele" end of 35mm- but i don't have the mk1 w/ me here to do comparisons.
May 25, 2007 at 03:24 AM
p.3 #16•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I like my new 16-35 II more than the former. IMHO, colors and contrast are enhanced and the lens IS sharper in the corners.
Here's a sample
Here's a sample
May 26, 2007 at 01:47 AM
p.3 #17•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
am fairly sure that the mk1 is a stronger performer at the "tele" end of 35mm-
I'm pretty sure people don't buy this lens for it's qualities at 35mm. This lens has always been designed with a focus on the wide end and fairly wide open, and the redesign is to improve just that. Good info though.
I'm pretty sure people don't buy this lens for it's qualities at 35mm. This lens has always been designed with a focus on the wide end and fairly wide open, and the redesign is to improve just that. Good info though.
May 27, 2007 at 02:49 PM
p.3 #18•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
boos wrote:
I know, I know I didn't put the hood on, I know I left the UV (B+W MRC) on, but I wasn't really expecting this. Anyone has similar result from this beautiful 16-35 II?
You shot without a hood, with a UV filter on the lens, with the sun just outside the frame, and you weren't expecting flare? That reads like the procedure for a test designed to induce flare.
This was taken at 16mm, F22
http://www.dcdc.ca/forum/uploads/post-2-1179622020.jpg
I'm actually surprised there wasn't more flare in that shot, given the conditions.
I know, I know I didn't put the hood on, I know I left the UV (B+W MRC) on, but I wasn't really expecting this. Anyone has similar result from this beautiful 16-35 II?
You shot without a hood, with a UV filter on the lens, with the sun just outside the frame, and you weren't expecting flare? That reads like the procedure for a test designed to induce flare.
This was taken at 16mm, F22
http://www.dcdc.ca/forum/uploads/post-2-1179622020.jpg
I'm actually surprised there wasn't more flare in that shot, given the conditions.
May 27, 2007 at 05:30 PM
p.3 #19•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
caleb condit wrote:
I'm pretty sure people don't buy this lens for it's qualities at 35mm. This lens has always been designed with a focus on the wide end and fairly wide open, and the redesign is to improve just that. Good info though.
I was just pointing out/agreeing to something alot of people have seen on their mkII's.
I for one, could glue mine to be at 16mm full-time, and it wouldn't bother me one bit.
Earlier quote
am fairly sure that the mk1 is a stronger performer at the "tele" end of 35mm-I was just pointing out/agreeing to something alot of people have seen on their mkII's.
I for one, could glue mine to be at 16mm full-time, and it wouldn't bother me one bit.
May 28, 2007 at 02:44 AM
p.3 #20•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I received mine today. Here is a link to the first image I have taken (my living room)
I see some vignetting but it doesn't actually bother me. I like it a lot. Particularly compared to my 20-35 L .http://www.studio58.com.au/opm/16-35.jpg[/url]
I see some vignetting but it doesn't actually bother me. I like it a lot. Particularly compared to my 20-35 L .http://www.studio58.com.au/opm/16-35.jpg[/url]
May 28, 2007 at 04:57 AM