Archive 2007 · •Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
p.6 #1•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
For Kohala's question about using a step down to 77mm for filter, with your 5D and at 16 mm, you can not use the step down. You will have significant vignetting in the corners. I suggest you invest in a top quality 82 mm UV filter, to protect your lens. The zoom movement system leaves an entrance at the front of the lens for dust and water, so when you have the bad conditions, always use the UV.
I am afraid that you also need an 82mm polarizer for this great lens. It is a big gulp to have to do that when you all ready may have a 77mm one, but you need it. It seems that you do not need a "slim" version of polarizer, but it may depend on the exact brand.
I am afraid that you also need an 82mm polarizer for this great lens. It is a big gulp to have to do that when you all ready may have a 77mm one, but you need it. It seems that you do not need a "slim" version of polarizer, but it may depend on the exact brand.
Jun 09, 2007 at 01:36 PM
p.6 #2•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Thanks Roland:
I'll take your advice and purchase the two 82mm ones (non-slim versions).
Kohala
I'll take your advice and purchase the two 82mm ones (non-slim versions).
Kohala
Jun 09, 2007 at 03:24 PM
p.6 #3•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Has anyone compared the 16-35mm II with the 17-40mm f/4?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Jun 09, 2007 at 10:53 PM
p.6 #4•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I've read through the thread with interests on the lens. There are two conflicting reports.
1. It is as good as 35L @35mm.
2. It is worse than MK1 for longer part of the zoom range.
I guess we may be seeing the sample to sample variation from the initial manufacturing.
1. It is as good as 35L @35mm.
2. It is worse than MK1 for longer part of the zoom range.
I guess we may be seeing the sample to sample variation from the initial manufacturing.
Jun 10, 2007 at 12:50 AM
p.6 #5•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I'll see if I can gather some evidence today. Just got my 5D and seven lenses back from CPS Friday, new sensor and all calibrated. Should all be as good as it gets.
Jun 10, 2007 at 02:34 AM
p.6 #6•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I think what you're seeing more than sample to sample variation is variation in the quality of user to user evaluation.
Pondria wrote:
I've read through the thread with interests on the lens. There are two conflicting reports.
1. It is as good as 35L @35mm.
2. It is worse than MK1 for longer part of the zoom range.
I guess we may be seeing the sample to sample variation from the initial manufacturing.
Pondria wrote:
I've read through the thread with interests on the lens. There are two conflicting reports.
1. It is as good as 35L @35mm.
2. It is worse than MK1 for longer part of the zoom range.
I guess we may be seeing the sample to sample variation from the initial manufacturing.
Jun 10, 2007 at 07:26 AM
p.6 #7•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Gib Robinson wrote:
Has anyone compared the 16-35mm II with the 17-40mm f/4?
Thanks.
I have both the 16-35 II and the 17-40 lenses and ran side by side comparison in my 5D at all corresponding focal lengths and f/stop. When compared side by side I found that this second copy of my 16-35 II is better up to and including f/5.6 but very close at f/8 and practically identical at f/11. The 16-35 has a little better color and extra punch having a bit better micro contrast.
The pictures were taken from tripod within minutes, RAW files processed in CS3 with basic sharpening (25), no additional sharpening. All the pictures were focused and refocused every focal lengths to the house number part of the picture with the center focusing point. I posted comparisons at 16-17mm f/8, 24mm f/8 and 35mm f/8. The comparisons were made at the center, the left and right edge of the center section then the bottom left and bottom right at 100 %, the files are labeled accordingly. Even so a slight difference may be noticeable in depth of field due to slight autofocus variations between the two lenses.
Here is the link where you can find these pictures, look at them at the original size.
http://www.pbase.com/jkovatch/lens_tests
My conclusion is that these two lenses are very close, certainly not in price but performance. I keep both of them for now since the 16-35 II has the extra 1mm (which is important in some situation), the extra f/stop and better performance at f/4-5.6
Has anyone compared the 16-35mm II with the 17-40mm f/4?
Thanks.
I have both the 16-35 II and the 17-40 lenses and ran side by side comparison in my 5D at all corresponding focal lengths and f/stop. When compared side by side I found that this second copy of my 16-35 II is better up to and including f/5.6 but very close at f/8 and practically identical at f/11. The 16-35 has a little better color and extra punch having a bit better micro contrast.
The pictures were taken from tripod within minutes, RAW files processed in CS3 with basic sharpening (25), no additional sharpening. All the pictures were focused and refocused every focal lengths to the house number part of the picture with the center focusing point. I posted comparisons at 16-17mm f/8, 24mm f/8 and 35mm f/8. The comparisons were made at the center, the left and right edge of the center section then the bottom left and bottom right at 100 %, the files are labeled accordingly. Even so a slight difference may be noticeable in depth of field due to slight autofocus variations between the two lenses.
Here is the link where you can find these pictures, look at them at the original size.
http://www.pbase.com/jkovatch/lens_tests
My conclusion is that these two lenses are very close, certainly not in price but performance. I keep both of them for now since the 16-35 II has the extra 1mm (which is important in some situation), the extra f/stop and better performance at f/4-5.6
Jun 10, 2007 at 03:49 PM
p.6 #8•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Julius wrote:
Thanks.I have both the 16-35 II and the 17-40 lenses and ran side by side comparison in my 5D at all corresponding focal lengths and f/stop. When compared side by side I found that this second copy of my 16-35 II is better up to and including f/5.6 but very close at f/8 and practically identical at f/11. The 16-35 has a little better color and extra punch having a bit better micro contrast.
The pictures were taken from tripod within minutes, RAW files processed in CS3 with basic sharpening (25), no additional sharpening. All the pictures were focused and...Show more →
Thanks for the test Julius. From your pictures I give the 17-40L an edge for corner resolution at f/8. That is surprising to me. Color and contrast are improved with the mk2. I may keep my 17-40mm for a while.
Gib Robinson wrote
Has anyone compared the 16-35mm II with the 17-40mm f/4?Thanks.
The pictures were taken from tripod within minutes, RAW files processed in CS3 with basic sharpening (25), no additional sharpening. All the pictures were focused and...Show more →
Thanks for the test Julius. From your pictures I give the 17-40L an edge for corner resolution at f/8. That is surprising to me. Color and contrast are improved with the mk2. I may keep my 17-40mm for a while.
Jun 10, 2007 at 04:12 PM
p.6 #9•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Julius wrote:
My conclusion is that these two lenses are very close, certainly not in price but performance. I keep both of them for now since the 16-35 II has the extra 1mm (which is important in some situation), the extra f/stop and better performance at f/4-5.6
Thank you Julius. That's just the kind of information I wanted :-)
My conclusion is that these two lenses are very close, certainly not in price but performance. I keep both of them for now since the 16-35 II has the extra 1mm (which is important in some situation), the extra f/stop and better performance at f/4-5.6
Thank you Julius. That's just the kind of information I wanted :-)
Jun 10, 2007 at 06:44 PM
p.6 #10•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I have been fighting myself from pressing the buy button on the 16-35 II, I have the 17-40 but have never been real happy. But after the cost of the lens, $1450.00, there is the cost of high quality filters adding another 300.00 (if you can find them). Now that begins to hurt. And to top it off, Fred says " I may keep my 17-40mm for a while."
I might buy some new AA batteries for my flash instead.
I might buy some new AA batteries for my flash instead.
Jun 10, 2007 at 07:28 PM
p.6 #11•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Can anyone comment on the flare characteristics of the mark II version. Flare is the one thing I dont like about my mark I copy, otherwise its a great lens.
Cheers, Dean
Cheers, Dean
Jun 10, 2007 at 10:40 PM
p.6 #12•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Quick hands on report with the 5d.
Very impressive with this lens, after using a mark I version in the past.
I dont have the Mark I so I cant directly compare the 2, but I do sense less light fall off with the new lens and sharper corners.
The new lens is sharp edge to edge when stopped down some, and useable down to f/4 as far as light fall off, and a decent size.
Its not been off the camera since I opened the box, and has replaced my 24-105 as the 5D's main lens, mostly shooting 16-24mm now.
There are cheaper options but I don't think many would be disappointed with the 16-35 II, at least the copy I have
Very impressive with this lens, after using a mark I version in the past.
I dont have the Mark I so I cant directly compare the 2, but I do sense less light fall off with the new lens and sharper corners.
The new lens is sharp edge to edge when stopped down some, and useable down to f/4 as far as light fall off, and a decent size.
Its not been off the camera since I opened the box, and has replaced my 24-105 as the 5D's main lens, mostly shooting 16-24mm now.
There are cheaper options but I don't think many would be disappointed with the 16-35 II, at least the copy I have
Jun 11, 2007 at 09:05 AM
p.6 #13•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Recommendations for filters for the lense? Just got mine yesterday and would appreciate any recommendations from the real world!
Jun 12, 2007 at 10:46 AM
p.6 #14•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Test of my new lens wide open.
 |
||
| http://www.mizarphotos.com/1635.jpg | ||
|
Jun 12, 2007 at 08:05 PM
p.6 #15•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Did I miss something? Has this become a lens thread? I thought it was about the Mark 3.
Jun 12, 2007 at 09:41 PM
p.6 #16•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
No this is the thread for the 16-35 II the Mark III thread is right below this.
Jun 12, 2007 at 09:52 PM
p.6 #18•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
Reponding to David Stanton, I just purchased a 82 mm slim Heliopan UV filter from Samy's. I have Heliopan on all my lens. But be sure to read "What's New on The-Digital-Picture.com" with the latest on his discovery of 82mm filters on his new 16-35 II. I think it will answer questions on needing the slim for full-framed but maybe not on the 1.3 or 1.6 crop cameras.
Jun 14, 2007 at 09:29 AM
p.6 #19•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
I'm using a Hoya Pro 1 thin filter on it, seems fine.
Jun 14, 2007 at 10:06 AM
p.6 #20•Hands-On• 16–35mm f/2.8L II
savaz: Thanks! Article was very helpful as I have the 20D.
Jun 14, 2007 at 11:45 AM