Here's my love with the 16-5/2.8L II, very early production in 2007, now I have UX date code of 16-35/2.8L II, and I had several copies of this lens during the past years, and I didn't notice any differences between them from my experience.
As I shoot this lens almost wide open most of the time, so I really don't care the corner sharpness, the version II is much better than the old one for sure which I can tell the IQ right away on my computer's screen..
The following shots was @ f/2.8, forgot the exact FL, but most likely is @ 16mm, I was walking along with the couple, and lowered the camera near ground level and a snap.... so the edge sharpness really doesn't matter to me.
. http://www.pbase.com/imagebypeter/image/85400333/original.jpg
Cheers...
BTW-- WHY ALL THOSE MICE, BIRD ETC ARE SO FRIENDLY TO PETER, lol... THIS REALLY PUZZLED ME A LOT
It wasn't Joshua's first copy, was it? Just kidding!
Hey, Joshua ... you went back to shoot the WDCH without calling me
Nice pics BTW.
Nowhere Man wrote:
I bought one used off a fellow FMer and I have never been impressed with it's performance. I sent it to Canon for recalibration and while it came back marginally better, it's still not nearly what I would expect from such a lens on my 1.3 bodies.
Nice shots of the very rare Barfootus Ratola Canadean Peter. Perhaps most FMers know it by its more common name the Canadian Barefoot Rat (note the hairless feet). These rabies vector animals have a very limited geographical ranges (Peter's backyard and laundry room) and have been known to get big enough to turn over 55 gallon garage pails in search of their favorite food...pigeon entrails.
"Rabies vector".......that's pretty good for a solicitor (sic.).
John, that is not a baby rat, that is a Vole.
I don't breed them, I don't feed them, I don't use them as baits in raptor photography.
Jeff, that's one heck of a shot. Simply awesome . Where is your focus point? Is the sand in the front corners, especially the left sharp? What was the aperture you used on that?
In my case, the sharp and really sharp area was limited more to the center part. So, not only the corners but edges were soft as well, even at f/8.0. If viewed on a regular monitor, the image appeared just fine.
Thanks, Joshua. I believe I set my focal point at about 1/3 into the scene which is about halfway up the dune part of the image. From memory (risky counting on that!), I believe I stopped down considerably, likely to f18 or maybe 20. I really wanted DOF on this one. I don't believe I see any negative effect from using that aperture., and I look pretty close. I also think I used live view and MF.
Jeff, thank you for the info. The focus plane you got from that setting is by design extended. Even if the front corners are a tad less sharp but your lens is within specification. The front corners are probably just outside the depth-of-field. With mine back then, edges, not even corners, that were supposed to be located well within the depth-of-field were blurred .
Using the entire range of apertures a particular lens has to offer, from the widest to the smallest, to get the desired effect is our privilege. I agree with you. People tend to hang up too much in limiting the aperture used only to the setting before the theoritical diffraction limit sets in. For landscape, especially that has flowing water, I tend to crank down the ISO, stop down the aperture enough to get a slow shutter speed that shows milky water. Stopping down to f/16 or even f/22 is quite common under certain circumstances without seeing any major ill effect, like you noticed. Yes, there is a "sweet range" of apertures but you don't have to stay only within that range to get those "sweet shots" .
I don't particularly like my 16-35 II either for all the reasons listed by Joshua, and it's a 2007 copy, and it was the third one I had my local store order in after refusing the first two. I had Canon Canada look at it several times, and it seems that's about all they did - look at it. It's definitely decentred because the left side of the image goes softer than the right side, especially below 20mm and below f/8, but they can't seem to fix it. It's primarily a problem when I need to photograph something relatively flat, including group photos. But in a shot like Jeffrey's it can be an advantage because the apparent field curvature can be taken advantage of to maintain good focus on close objects along the side of the frame and distant objects in the centre. Oh, and it also has a sticky spot in the zoom at around 20mm that is annoying, especially if trying to do a bit of zoom while shooting video.
Maybe I should give a new one a try just to see... but for that amount of money I think I'd rather just get the ZE21.
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe I should give a new one a try just to see... but for that amount of money I think I'd rather just get the ZE21.
Ron,
I went through images I took a few years ago with the Contax Zeiss Distagon 21mm adopted to my Canon and the image quality this lens delivered is nothing short but amazing. The ZE 21mm would be indeed the one I would like to get. I am expecting my 24mm TS-E II to be delivered today and that lens is reported to be the sharpest 24mm currently available. Since I don't have the Distagon anymore, I cannot do a side-by-side comparison of the two but it seems reasonable to assume that they are approximately equal in the resolution department, one having a slightly longer FL than the other. But the TS-E feature is a big plus for me. I know the 16-35mm II cannot match the ZE 21mm but it would be fairly close and is a zoom lens with its conveniences. Since I already have the zoom lens, I went for the TS-E lens. Just another option, I guess.
Joshua, It was SO refreshing to read your reply. I constantly read posts here and elsewhere about all the people that never go beyond f4, as if their cameras will explode. And then there are the masses that are truly scared to use anything f16 or beyond. So, why would the lens be made that way? Some of my most popular images, printed fairly large, were stopped down for DOF and no one can tell.
And, I also use the ZE 21, 35, 50 , & 85. I had the 21 with me that morning at the totem pole, but I needed 16mm to make that image to my desire.
From some of the comparisons I've seen here between the new TS-Es and the ZE21, sharpness from all is very, very good, with perhaps the 17 being slightly behind. Where subjectivity comes into play is the issue of rendering styles. Never having used a ZE I can only go by what I've seen here and the opinions expressed by others that the ZE might have a bit more pop than the Canons... but then, nearly every image posted here has also received some post production work, so it's often difficult to really know if it's the lens or the author's PP skills.
I also considered the new TS-E 24 but being a 1.3x crop shooter opted for the 17 instead. I love it, and use it many times in place of the 16-35 for 'normal' photography where I know I'll be at the wide end most of the time and will want better overall performance, especially when below f/8. Even for normal, non-architectural or technical work, the ability to dial in a touch of shift and/or tilt can be invaluable. But the 17 does have a tendency to flare a bit if there are any strong specular light sources within or just outside the frame, be it the sun, spotlights, streetlights, track lighting, etc. That shouldn't be an issue with the 24.
I guess for me the ZE21 is appealing because I think I would then also invest in a FF sensor body. I have only worked with 1.3x crops since 2002, so 16mm is really only seeing a 21mm equivalent, therefore 21mm would be a comfortable lens for me on FF. If I need wider I have the TS-E 17, which I can also stitch for even wider perspectives...
Off on a tangent, another option I'm considering is that a ZE21 and 5DII equal about half the cost of an M9 and a ZM21, so why not just go all the way and shift much of my wide and normal work to an M9 and a collection of ZM lenses that will be optically excellent and much more compact?
Jeffrey wrote:
I constantly read posts here and elsewhere about all the people that never go beyond f4, as if their cameras will explode.
I haven't noticed a profusion of those posts...perhaps I do not register those kinds of discussions.
Regrettably, what I do see is an overwhelming and increasing abundance of posts of the following type:
(1) I wanna trade in my 15 FE and 100-300 f/4 Sigma for 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.....will I be sufficiently happy with that swap ? If so, what kinda happiness will I experience ?
(2) Tomorrow I wanna start shooting kindergarten football professionally. What camera body is better for that: 7D vs. 1DsMkIV, 300D vs. D700, 10D vs. Phase 1, 5D vs. Digital Elph, MkIV vs. MkIV or 70D vs. 5DMkIII ?
. Where is your focus point? Is the sand in the front corners, especially the left sharp? What was the aperture you used on that?
.