Indeed, those are some really great images , Tom! The edges of the structures are pretty straight. Now, the question is, did you put some lens correction work on those?
AGeoJO wrote:
Indeed, those are some really great images , Tom! The edges of the structures are pretty straight. Now, the question is, did you put some lens correction work on those?
I never bothered upgrading from my mkI because the first time I tried the new lens I was totally underwhelmed (this was when they launched the new version, so it sort of falls in line with everyone else's experience). I have always liked my 16-35 personally because it goes wider than any other lens I own, that in itself makes it unique.
However, I am awful intrigued by the new Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 that should be out soon. The initial reviews are very promising and it looks quite impressive. I may sell off my 16-35 and get that eventually.... Maybe
I'm glad they fixed the 16-35mkII though, because it definitely wasn't right in the beginning.
I've been on the fence for this lens well over a year. My current lineup (1D2, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 70-200 2.8 IS II) could use something on the wide end as a zoom - instead of me getting a second body for my street work. I had a 24-105 which was great, until the sun started to dip - then forget it.
I've been in a lull while working with my 70-200. I've left my 28 and even 50 sit to collect dust. I had those two specifically for lower light applications, but that was when I had 2 camera bodies. I've since sold my 5D and 24-105 kit and have been trying to figure out where to go next to run with a 2 lens zoom setup.
I was going to pick up a 16-35, and sell off my 28/1.8 and "maybe" keep my 50 just to have a low light prime. But having 28mm @ 1.8 is pretty damn nice at times too.
So I was between the 24-70 and the 16-35, but neither are appealing to me really, especially with this thread. My ideal street setup is 16-35 or 24-70 with the 70-200 2.8. Otherwise I suck it up and get a 24-105 again.
I actually like the 16-35 range on APS-H. It's my 'normal' lens. I just wish my copy performed better, though I'm now curious about trying a newer version to see if there really is any difference over the early batches. I never bothered with the 24-70. It just seemed like a huge lens to carry in addition to the huge 70-200 2.8. Instead I keep a 50 to fill the gap and serve in low light (which you also already have).
I have a sharp copy of the 17-35 but thought I would go for the 16-35 II when it came out. Now I have two sharp zoom lenses. lol
The 16-35 has a little more snap to it in contrast and the edges are sharper, so no don't hate it, nice lens. Now compared to my Leica 35 f2 or 25mm Biogon, well that is another story but I am plenty happy with the II.
Although my copy does nasty things to people with the distortion, its a lens that needs talent to produce results and although the focus is slightly off (annoying), stopped down even into diffraction territory it's the sharpest zoom I've ever owned @ 16mm (3X17-40L, 3X 24-70L, 70-200 f4L IS and non), sharper in the corners than any of my 17-40L's either, substantially so. I'd read of how bad this lens is but sorry, it's one bleeding sharp lens on my 5D's...
I can't talk for f2.8 until I get the focus accurate enough but it looks plenty 'good enough', I've given up being very fussy these days as long as the focus is right.
I have one of the earlier models and coupled with my 40D, it is the lens I use almost 95% of the time. It's versatile, fast and coupled with a crop camera, it's sharp from end to end of the frame.
I love this lens. One of my best purchases ever. Next year, I plan to get the 5D (if they release a new version, else I'll get the MkII). That's when the lens would be really put to test, with the higher resolution and full frame.
I tried a 16-35mm at B&H, taking the typical "in the store" pictures. No tripod, I tried to keep steady and used a high iso value. Is this about as good as I can expect? Reason for asking is that full size crops were nothing to write home about. Both for this and the 14mm lens used below.
Hi Savas, I am not sure. It is difficult to judge the performance of a lens like that. Although they look OK at larger magnification but I could see some softness here and there. I am not sure whether it is the result of camera/lens movement, actual "softness" of the lens, focusing irregularities, etc. I am not sure about the aperture setting you use. When I did my original test/comparison, I used my camera's liveview on a sturdy tripod, at low ISO setting and I used various apertures, etc. I took my time and did it a little more deliberately than just a few fast, handheld snapshots. Sorry .
Thanks, anyway. I shot them wide open and felt under pressure not to waste the salesman's time. My normal usage will be handheld in low light and/or on tripod in a similarly deliberate fashion as yours and others. Yours, Jeff's and Tom K's shots look amazing and is something to aspire to. Part of it is deciding between 16-35, while the rebate is going on, versus the newly introduced Tokina 16-28. As the thread title implies, the 16-35 hasn't been the most popular, takes a drubbing here and there, yet regardless the images posted here demonstrate otherwise.
, Tom! The edges of the structures are pretty straight. Now, the question is, did you put some lens correction work on those?
.