I am search of some opinions. I finally decided to try out a 16-35 II and compare it to my 16-35 (version I). It has been a while since the newer iteration of the lens came out, and I wanted to try for myself and see if it was worth the update. From reading the forum and outside reviews it sounds like people have been happy with the newer version. I had been quite satisfied with my copy of the original 16-35, but you always wonder if something better is out there. I shoot landscapes and weddings, so the wide angle appeals to me, as does f/2.8 and AF control. This is/has been the lens choice for me, but I was explicitly interested in the updated version as it compares to the original. Well, the short story (illustrated below) is that the lens appears to significantly back-focus and is seemingly out-shined in most every regard by my four year old 16-35 v1.
I shot a couple of different scenes, but this one shows the results well enough. The shots were via aperture priority, MLU, remote release, and autofocus on each shot -- on a tripod with my 1DsII. Raw images were opened in ACR and saved as JPEG, with the overall shot being re-sized to 1000px before save. Full size files are available if anyone is really interested. Here are the quick comparison shots; first a view of the scene, then 100% crops from center and edges for each lens. Sorry for the bleak conditions, the weather in Maryland isn't so nice today.
In any case, I would appreciate any suggestions. By my eyes there definitely appears to be a problem with back-focus (I don't have AF microadjust to check if that is indeed the case), but CA, etc also don't look all that improved. Should I simply return the lens to try another copy, or should I send it into Canon for calibration to see what they can do?
Dave,
It would seem that IQ is a separate issue from back-focus. Why not manually focus to compare IQ between the lenses. Then, if your Mark II has a back-focus issue, obviously that requires attention from Canon service. Wouldn't you like to know how these lenses compare under the best conditions for both? If your aim was to prove that one lens in focus provides better IQ than another lens out of focus, you've succeeded, but what have you learned? (If you mentioned the camera used, I didn't see it. If it's one of the newer models with AF micro adjustments, perhaps some adjustment is in order.)
I'd suggest trying some with MF to check the difference in IQ.
Besides, I'm very interested in the opinions you'll get on this. I'm thinking about the 16-35 Mk I mainly because I've had a dud of a 16-35 II (massive front-focus; a trip to Canon didn't help; I finally managed to returned it, being glad I hadn't yet sold my 17-40) and - more importantly - I don't really feel like getting a CP, UV, and various ND filters for 82mm.
Thanks for the feedback. I can definitely do a manual focus test, although for my uses (i.e. especially event/wedding) it absolutely needs to perform via AF. So that is how I composed the original test. Unfortunately today the sun is already mostly set so I will have to try again tomorrow. Also, with the time into Canon for repair I would probably not be within the window for return.
I am very interested in overall IQ, which is what I wanted to accomplish and the reason I purchased the lens even though being pretty satisfied with my copy of the original. Let me phrase the question differently, do the above results show anything unexpected? For those who own a satisfactory copy of the 16-35 II, is there more to be had compared to what you see from how my version I is performing?
Had the first version and liked it...the second version is even better, sharp all around the colors are improved. I can supply real-life photos from both but never did any testing, both worked as advertised so no need...testing gives me a headache anyway.
Apart from the back focus issue with your lens - which can and should be adjusted - what I've heard is that the 16-35 II is a bit better at f/2.8 than the original, but no better and perhaps very marginally (and probably insignificantly) less good at smaller apertures. It also requires a different diameter filter, 82mm rather than the somewhat standard 77mm size.
irieweasel wrote:
For those who own a satisfactory copy of the 16-35 II, is there more to be had compared to what you see from how my version I is performing?
Yes. I saw a noticeable improvement in the mkII at f/2.8 from my old mkI. It also resolves more fine detail than the older version did. Time to get another copy, I'd say.
jfulton wrote:
Yes. I saw a noticeable improvement in the mkII at f/2.8 from my old mkI. It also resolves more fine detail than the older version did. Time to get another copy, I'd say.
Thanks Jfulton, that's the direction I was leaning based on all the reviews I have read. I definitely appreciate everyone's input!
I also shoot weddings and landscapes, which is why I'm sticking with my original 16-35: First and most importantly, my 16-35 produces great images (or at least it doesn't keep my from producing great images). But with wedding photography I could really care less about crop/corner sharpness. For landscape photography I do care about crop/corner sharpness etc, but all of my other lenses and filters are 77mm, plus I really have no need for 2.8 (or the extra weight that comes with it), so I generally use my 17-40.
Thanks for the all the comments everyone, aside from the initial expense of an 82mm UV (when I have plenty of 77mm versions), the filter size doesn't bother me all that much. For my landscape work I use 4x4 filters so it is simply a matter of a different adapter to fit to the lens. A few dollars added, but overall not a big problem if IQ is indeed improved.
ChrisDM wrote:
I also shoot weddings and landscapes, which is why I'm sticking with my original 16-35: First and most importantly, my 16-35 produces great images (or at least it doesn't keep my from producing great images). But with wedding photography I could really care less about crop/corner sharpness. For landscape photography I do care about crop/corner sharpness etc, but all of my other lenses and filters are 77mm, plus I really have no need for 2.8 (or the extra weight that comes with it), so I generally use my 17-40.
Thanks for sharing your test with us.
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com
Thanks Chris,
I agree with you, I don't care about corners at all for my wedding work -- just the f/2.8. I purchased the 16-35 originally b/c I didn't want the extra lens (e.g. the 17-40) if I could accomplish everything with one. The landscape use was what I was looking to improve. I appreciate the feedback!
I am leaning against sending this to Canon even if this is just a focus issue, because if it isn't I will be outside the window to return the lens. Perhaps I will try another [MF] shoot tomorrow before I return the lens. At this point, I think I might try another copy and if see if it does more. Otherwise, I am indeed happy with my original.
