Archive 2007 · •Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
p.4 #1•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
wow Studio58....forget the lens....you have a great looking place!
May 28, 2007 at 02:01 PM
p.4 #2•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
yea thanks fungke, if you like that you oughta see the view. It looks out right over the beach.
It has been paid for by Canon gear !!!!!!!
Cheers,
Paul
It has been paid for by Canon gear !!!!!!!
Cheers,
Paul
May 28, 2007 at 05:05 PM
p.4 #3•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
16-35L Mk2 as a macro.
@35mm 1/125 f/5.6
@35mm 1/125 f/5.6
May 29, 2007 at 04:12 AM
p.4 #4•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Can any 16-35II owners tell me if they are having AF accuracy problems with the lens at the wide end?
I'm now testing the third copy my dealer has brought in and it's the best so far, but as with the previous copies, I'm having front focus issues with it, most notably at 16mm. I've noticed that if I zoom to 35mm, AF or MF, then zoom back to 16mm, the focus remains accurate through pretty much the whole zoom range. If I AF again at 16mm, it will front focus considerably. I've been able to confirm this visually using an eyepiece magnifier and also in the test images.
Comparing the MkII against my 16-35 MkI, my lens will AF accurately at all focal lengths with both of my 1DIIN bodies. It's not necessary to focus at 35 and zoom back. The front focus problem with the MkII lens happens consistently with both cameras. Since it also appeared to happen with the previously tested MkII copies, could there be a general problem with the new lens?
Tests were done at four distances. Around 5',10', 15' and about 30' with the front focusing being quite apparent at wider apertures (obviously).
Thanks, Ron
I'm now testing the third copy my dealer has brought in and it's the best so far, but as with the previous copies, I'm having front focus issues with it, most notably at 16mm. I've noticed that if I zoom to 35mm, AF or MF, then zoom back to 16mm, the focus remains accurate through pretty much the whole zoom range. If I AF again at 16mm, it will front focus considerably. I've been able to confirm this visually using an eyepiece magnifier and also in the test images.
Comparing the MkII against my 16-35 MkI, my lens will AF accurately at all focal lengths with both of my 1DIIN bodies. It's not necessary to focus at 35 and zoom back. The front focus problem with the MkII lens happens consistently with both cameras. Since it also appeared to happen with the previously tested MkII copies, could there be a general problem with the new lens?
Tests were done at four distances. Around 5',10', 15' and about 30' with the front focusing being quite apparent at wider apertures (obviously).
Thanks, Ron
May 29, 2007 at 05:59 PM
p.4 #5•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Sorry, but no. A quick test at ~10 feet shows that my 16-35 II's AF is dead on at 16 mm and f/2.8 (using 1Ds MK II).
EB
EB
May 29, 2007 at 06:25 PM
p.4 #6•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I'm not having any focus problems, but I'm using center point only on a 5D. There was somebody on DPReview that was having problems on a 5D but had more luck when he switched to center only.
-Tim
May 29, 2007 at 06:27 PM
p.4 #7•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
The more I am using this lens on my 5D, the more I am enjoying it. While the 24-105L is a great travel lens, I think I would take the 16-35L, my 70-200L f/4 IS, and a fast prime like the 35 or 85L on my next trip and leave the 24-105L at home....
Peter
Peter
May 29, 2007 at 06:28 PM
p.4 #8•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I forgot to mention I was using only the center point on both Mark II N bodies.
May 29, 2007 at 07:47 PM
p.4 #9•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I took this lens with me to DC last weekend. I loved it.
A couple of pictures from the amazing lobby of The Willard Hotel in DC -
yes, the term "lobbyist" comes from that lobby
The hotel...
and a little flare control action:
and just for fun, a little mini-bar action
Andrew
A couple of pictures from the amazing lobby of The Willard Hotel in DC -
yes, the term "lobbyist" comes from that lobby
The hotel...
and a little flare control action:
and just for fun, a little mini-bar action
Andrew
May 29, 2007 at 09:52 PM
p.4 #10•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
16-36 MkII vs. 16-35 MkI – The following are my impressions from testing on the 1D MkII N, which is the model I own and use daily. While full frame users may not find this so appealing, especially related to corner/edge performance, it should still give an indication of the MkII's capabilities.
16mm: The MkII @ 2.8 is surprisingly sharp across the image, from central edge to central edge (corners are soft). Corners sharpen up considerably by f/4. Other than more vignetting and shallower DOF at 2.8, I feel overall IQ doesn't improve much until beyond 5.6 and would not hesitate to shoot at 2.8 rather than f/4 or jump immediately to 5.6. It's impressive to see how good sharpness is here at 2.8 even compared to f/11. CA also seems to be somewhat better controlled than the MkI lens, but isn't completely corrected. To quantify it, I would guess it's slightly more than half that of the MkI. At this focal length the MkI is softer in the corners and improves all the way through f/11 in a more gradual manner than the MkII. By f/11 there isn't much of a difference other than CA. In general, the MkI has a slightly hazy/muddy look at all focal lengths wide open to a stop or two down.
20mm: While the MkII doesn't have the surprisingly even central edge to central edge sharpness at 2.8 here as at 16mm, it's still very good and improves dramatically corner to corner at f/4 and looks great all the way through f/11. This might be the best overall focal length for this lens. The MkI is worse in the corners and edges, improving by f/8, yet the MkII manages the same edge IQ at f/4. Quite impressive.
24mm & 28mm: Here both lenses have good sharpness with the MkII exhibiting better overall central performance at 2.8. Wide open the MkI appears more smeared at these focal lengths than any other. Bright subject matter with sharp transitions to black exhibit halos, though this clears up entirely by f/4. The MkII is very crisp with great contrast, but sharpness falls off from the center somewhat quickly, more so at 28mm. At 24mm edge/corner sharpness for both lenses improves by 5.6. At 28mm the MkI seems to have a bit of an edge, clearing up around 5.6 while the MkII needs until about f/8. Here it's a bit of a toss up. If you need this lens for 2.8, the MkII will be the much better choice for center performance.
35mm: The MkI still has a slight halo issue here at 2.8 with bright subject matter against dark backgrounds, though not nearly as pronounced as at 28mm. As a result the MkII has better central sharpness and contrast. However, at this focal length, the most recent MkII lens I tested appeared to be a bit off in the upper left side in some images, which resulted in inferior left edge sharpness until f/11 and somewhat nasty looking boke(h). But along the other edges/corners, the two appeared quite similar.
Overall impressions:
The MkII lens is an all around improvement over the MkI with the exception of possibly slightly inferior corner/edge performance at wide to moderate aperture at 28mm. It has overall better contrast at wide apertures, especially at middle to long focal lengths. The lens seems to be best optimized between 16-24mm with quite impressive center to edge sharpness at 16mm and 20mm, which is precisely where I think a lot of photographers will need this most since there are other good lens options at 24mm and beyond. There is barrel distortion at 16mm though slightly less than the MkI. 20mm is nearly neutral compared to some barrel in the MkI. Pincushion is evident between 28-35, though not too bad. For people photography where flatness of field isn't so critical, the lens will perform very well, even wide open, as the central zone is very sharp with improved contrast over the MkI. Vignetting clears up for the most part by f/4 and isn't noticeable at 5.6. Again, please keep in mind that my results are based on use with the 1D MkII N. Full frame users will likely have somewhat different impressions of the lens related to edge performance.
As noted in my previous post here, I've had some issues with AF front focusing at the wide end of the 16-35 MkII. At this point I'm not sure whether it's an issue with the lens or camera, though it happens with both of my MkII N bodies (using the center point). But, after analyzing carefully focused test images, the MkII lens looks like a general improvement, especially at the wide end and if not all of your images will be made at f/11 or higher.
16mm: The MkII @ 2.8 is surprisingly sharp across the image, from central edge to central edge (corners are soft). Corners sharpen up considerably by f/4. Other than more vignetting and shallower DOF at 2.8, I feel overall IQ doesn't improve much until beyond 5.6 and would not hesitate to shoot at 2.8 rather than f/4 or jump immediately to 5.6. It's impressive to see how good sharpness is here at 2.8 even compared to f/11. CA also seems to be somewhat better controlled than the MkI lens, but isn't completely corrected. To quantify it, I would guess it's slightly more than half that of the MkI. At this focal length the MkI is softer in the corners and improves all the way through f/11 in a more gradual manner than the MkII. By f/11 there isn't much of a difference other than CA. In general, the MkI has a slightly hazy/muddy look at all focal lengths wide open to a stop or two down.
20mm: While the MkII doesn't have the surprisingly even central edge to central edge sharpness at 2.8 here as at 16mm, it's still very good and improves dramatically corner to corner at f/4 and looks great all the way through f/11. This might be the best overall focal length for this lens. The MkI is worse in the corners and edges, improving by f/8, yet the MkII manages the same edge IQ at f/4. Quite impressive.
24mm & 28mm: Here both lenses have good sharpness with the MkII exhibiting better overall central performance at 2.8. Wide open the MkI appears more smeared at these focal lengths than any other. Bright subject matter with sharp transitions to black exhibit halos, though this clears up entirely by f/4. The MkII is very crisp with great contrast, but sharpness falls off from the center somewhat quickly, more so at 28mm. At 24mm edge/corner sharpness for both lenses improves by 5.6. At 28mm the MkI seems to have a bit of an edge, clearing up around 5.6 while the MkII needs until about f/8. Here it's a bit of a toss up. If you need this lens for 2.8, the MkII will be the much better choice for center performance.
35mm: The MkI still has a slight halo issue here at 2.8 with bright subject matter against dark backgrounds, though not nearly as pronounced as at 28mm. As a result the MkII has better central sharpness and contrast. However, at this focal length, the most recent MkII lens I tested appeared to be a bit off in the upper left side in some images, which resulted in inferior left edge sharpness until f/11 and somewhat nasty looking boke(h). But along the other edges/corners, the two appeared quite similar.
Overall impressions:
The MkII lens is an all around improvement over the MkI with the exception of possibly slightly inferior corner/edge performance at wide to moderate aperture at 28mm. It has overall better contrast at wide apertures, especially at middle to long focal lengths. The lens seems to be best optimized between 16-24mm with quite impressive center to edge sharpness at 16mm and 20mm, which is precisely where I think a lot of photographers will need this most since there are other good lens options at 24mm and beyond. There is barrel distortion at 16mm though slightly less than the MkI. 20mm is nearly neutral compared to some barrel in the MkI. Pincushion is evident between 28-35, though not too bad. For people photography where flatness of field isn't so critical, the lens will perform very well, even wide open, as the central zone is very sharp with improved contrast over the MkI. Vignetting clears up for the most part by f/4 and isn't noticeable at 5.6. Again, please keep in mind that my results are based on use with the 1D MkII N. Full frame users will likely have somewhat different impressions of the lens related to edge performance.
As noted in my previous post here, I've had some issues with AF front focusing at the wide end of the 16-35 MkII. At this point I'm not sure whether it's an issue with the lens or camera, though it happens with both of my MkII N bodies (using the center point). But, after analyzing carefully focused test images, the MkII lens looks like a general improvement, especially at the wide end and if not all of your images will be made at f/11 or higher.
May 29, 2007 at 11:21 PM
p.4 #11•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Snowboarder nice images.
rscheffler thanks for the review, I had hoped the new mark II would have offered better FF corners given the larger size of the front element. Still of the 3 Canon ultra wides looks like the new one is the best performer.
What to pick I guess depends on the budget and prices.
Edited by JackCnd on May 30, 2007 at 08:28 AM GMT
Edited by JackCnd on May 30, 2007 at 08:29 AM GMT
rscheffler thanks for the review, I had hoped the new mark II would have offered better FF corners given the larger size of the front element. Still of the 3 Canon ultra wides looks like the new one is the best performer.
What to pick I guess depends on the budget and prices.
Edited by JackCnd on May 30, 2007 at 08:28 AM GMT
Edited by JackCnd on May 30, 2007 at 08:29 AM GMT
May 30, 2007 at 08:51 AM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.4 #12•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I have had focussing problems with my 5D's. One reason I 'upgraded' to this lens from the Nikkor 17-35 I was using before was to get AF. Now I can see I am going to have to go back to manual :(
The extreme corners are still poor, but I am liking the rich colour, contrast and detail across the rest of the frame.
The extreme corners are still poor, but I am liking the rich colour, contrast and detail across the rest of the frame.
May 30, 2007 at 09:17 AM
p.4 #13•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
ooooh lovely flare stars around the lights in the mini-bar shot
May 30, 2007 at 10:47 AM
p.4 #14•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Adorama has dropped the price to $1449,
looks like we are out early adopters pricing period...
With the very popular M III at 1.3x , maybe Sigma's 12-24 will get more attention, too.
looks like we are out early adopters pricing period...
With the very popular M III at 1.3x , maybe Sigma's 12-24 will get more attention, too.
Jun 01, 2007 at 08:52 AM
p.4 #15•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
rscheffler wrote:
As noted in my previous post here, I've had some issues with AF front focusing at the wide end of the 16-35 MkII. At this point I'm not sure whether it's an issue with the lens or camera, though it happens with both of my MkII N bodies (using the center point).
I had the same front focusing problem with my first copy of this lens, but the second copy I received does not have this problem at all. It is definitely a lens related problem.
Julius
As noted in my previous post here, I've had some issues with AF front focusing at the wide end of the 16-35 MkII. At this point I'm not sure whether it's an issue with the lens or camera, though it happens with both of my MkII N bodies (using the center point).
I had the same front focusing problem with my first copy of this lens, but the second copy I received does not have this problem at all. It is definitely a lens related problem.
Julius
Jun 01, 2007 at 11:07 AM
p.4 #16•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Could someone who owns the Mk 2 and a 24-70 please tell me how they compare at 24 & 35, especially at larger apertures.
Jun 02, 2007 at 06:51 PM
p.4 #17•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
staffer1 wrote:
Could someone who owns the Mk 2 and a 24-70 please tell me how they compare at 24 & 35, especially at larger apertures.
I have not obsessed over pixel-peeping with these two lenses but at f/2.8 they are fairly close. I would give the nod to the 16-35 at 24mm and the 24-70 is definitely better at 35mm, imo.
Could someone who owns the Mk 2 and a 24-70 please tell me how they compare at 24 & 35, especially at larger apertures.
I have not obsessed over pixel-peeping with these two lenses but at f/2.8 they are fairly close. I would give the nod to the 16-35 at 24mm and the 24-70 is definitely better at 35mm, imo.
Jun 02, 2007 at 08:40 PM
p.4 #18•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
staffer1 wrote:
Could someone who owns the Mk 2 and a 24-70 please tell me how they compare at 24 & 35, especially at larger apertures.
I compared these two lenses at every f/stop and focal length side by side before I sold my 24-70L lens.
Without the slightest doubt my 24-70L was noticeably better at f/2.8-4 at close to the edges, they were very close at f/5.6 and there was no difference at f/8-11. The only reason I sold the 24-70L lens because it was big and heavy and hardly ever used it after I purchased the 24-105L IS lens, and I shoot just about always at f/8-11.
Could someone who owns the Mk 2 and a 24-70 please tell me how they compare at 24 & 35, especially at larger apertures.
I compared these two lenses at every f/stop and focal length side by side before I sold my 24-70L lens.
Without the slightest doubt my 24-70L was noticeably better at f/2.8-4 at close to the edges, they were very close at f/5.6 and there was no difference at f/8-11. The only reason I sold the 24-70L lens because it was big and heavy and hardly ever used it after I purchased the 24-105L IS lens, and I shoot just about always at f/8-11.
Jun 03, 2007 at 12:20 PM
p.4 #19•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
For those of you have the lens, i'm thinking of either getting this lens and mounting on my 20d, or upgrade my 20d to a 5d. I can't only afford one or the other. I'm planning to upgrade to a FF eventually and do not want to get the 10-22mm EFs. Will this be a waste of money until i get a FF camera, or will my 20d be sufficient for the meantime. your opinions will be appreciated. thanks
Jun 07, 2007 at 08:19 PM
p.4 #20•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Cameras come and cameras go, but always Go for the Glass! It will survive many camera upgrades.
Jun 07, 2007 at 08:25 PM