PDA

View Full Version : 16-35/2.8 II - let's talk


cwphoto
02-26-2007, 03:30 AM
This one came from left field in my book (I was predicting a 200/2 IS :rolleyes: ).

My initial reaction is that my 16-35/2.8 isn't too shabby. But new gear is hard to resist. :o

The whole 82mm filter thread thing is a bit of a problem too (as if I don't have enough money in filters).

I mean extra IQ is always welcome, but I've only had the 16-35/2.8 for a year or so - and to be honest, it's not one of my 'go-to' lenses if you know what I mean (not like a 35/1.4 or a 24-70/2.8 anyway).

Whadayou monkeys reckon?
ReF
02-26-2007, 03:48 AM
This one came from left field in my book (I was predicting a 200/2 IS :rolleyes: ).

My initial reaction is that my 16-35/2.8 isn't too shabby. But new gear is hard to resist. :o

The whole 82mm filter thread thing is a bit of a problem too (as if I don't have enough money in filters).

I mean extra IQ is always welcome, but I've only had the 16-35/2.8 for a year or so - and to be honest, it's not one of my 'go-to' lenses if you know what I mean (not like a 35/1.4 or a 24-70/2.8 anyway).

Whadayou monkeys reckon?

i'm really interested in this one. saw some tests on full frame where the old one gets killed by other lenses until it reaches about 28-35mm. i read the same stuff in several other places, and have seen that there are people that use wides from other manufacturers in MF cuz they weren't happy with the canon offerings. i have little reason to think all these people saying the same thing and the visual examples i saw are bs. if this turns out to be a good lens i'd be a real happy camper. no one seems to make a wide zoom like this that's a killer throughout it's entire range though, it's usually half - so i'm not going to get my hopes up too high...
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 03:57 AM
EOS-1D Mark II N with EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM @ 35mm. 1/200s @ f/3.2, ISO 200:
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 03:59 AM
100% crop. Although I think most complaints will be about corner issues at 16mm. I will try and do some tests this weekend.
ReF
02-26-2007, 04:03 AM
from what i saw, the corners are a mess between 17-around 28mm on FF. 28-35 is supposed to be pretty good.
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 04:05 AM
EOS-1D Mark II N with EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM @ 16mm. 1/250s @ f/8, ISO 100:
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 04:08 AM
from what i saw, the corners are a mess between 17-around 28mm on FF. 28-35 is supposed to be pretty good.

OK, here's a crop from bottom right corner - again at f/8:
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 04:10 AM
And one from the top left (a lil' CA):
cdifoto
02-26-2007, 04:11 AM
That's not too bad CW but it's also f/8. Pretty much anything looks decent at f/8. It's wide open that shit hits the fan, and that's the point of getting the 16-35 over the 17-40 in most cases.
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 04:17 AM
That's not too bad CW but it's also f/8. Pretty much anything looks decent at f/8. It's wide open that shit hits the fan, and that's the point of getting the 16-35 over the 17-40 in most cases.

Yeah good point, how about f/4? This one is at 1/25 without tripod and ISO 1000 though:
ReF
02-26-2007, 04:19 AM
why the hell did i say 17 when it's a 16-__mm lens? oh well. i sent you a pm btw c-dub. let me know what you think of the 16-35 part when it's working again.
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 04:53 AM
crop from bottom left:
forno
02-26-2007, 04:55 AM
EOS-1D Mark II N with EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM @ 16mm. 1/250s @ f/8, ISO 100:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20729&stc=1&d=1172487943

Great shot mate:cool:

Me like vedy much :p
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 06:51 AM
EOS-1Ds Mark II with EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM @ 16mm. 1/250s @ f/4, ISO 800:
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 06:55 AM
Crop from bottom right corner:
RichNY
02-26-2007, 07:07 AM
I haven't owned one of the 16-35's but from what I've read it doesn't seem to be as nice a lens as the 10-22 on a 1.6 cropper.
coldrain
02-26-2007, 07:59 AM
Who are you kidding, CW. Sooner or later the new 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II will find a way to you. You may resist for now, but deep in your heart you know is how things will be.

While the 16-35 f2.8 is a nice lens, it just is not one of the sharpest lenses of the L series. And with the advent of new 1D and 1Ds versions with higher resolutions thsi resolving power needs to be upped... and my guess is that that is exactly what Canon is doing here.

Considering theit lastest afforts (EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM, Canon EF 85mm f1.2 L USM II, Canon EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM) this lens too will be a real optical marvel. Sharper than anything Nikon offers, no CA problems like Nikon's lenses keep displaying, and just ridiculously sharp for a zoom of this kind (like one or two Pentax lenses and a few Olympus lenses).

Since you do not NEED it right now you should not worry about it... but sooner or later this lens will find its way to you!
It is time for an EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM II though... and for it to get the amazing optics of the new EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, and more effective IS. Next round maybe?
RichNY
02-26-2007, 08:21 AM
Cool shot. I've never seen Australian picture 'on' picture before.;) :D
cdifoto
02-26-2007, 09:04 AM
"Why don't my images PoP?"

"Because you only have one TV."

:eek: :D
jamison55
02-26-2007, 09:06 AM
Cool shot. I've never seen Australian picture 'on' picture before.;) :D

THAT's funny!

Of Canon's three announcements this one interests me the least... I have been having really good results with the Sigma 10-20 on my 20D evn though it's "slow". I'm thinking the 17-40 I just picked up for my 5D should keep me happy in the UWA range...
24Peter
02-26-2007, 09:09 AM
Cool shot. I've never seen Australian picture 'on' picture before.;) :D

Yeah I was gonna say forget the lens: what you need is a 50" Plasma! ;)
coldrain
02-26-2007, 09:13 AM
Yeah I was gonna say forget the lens: what you need is a 50" Plasma! ;)
Australians are a bit more environment aware than you UnitedStateians... so my bet is that he may go for an LCD TV ;).
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 02:46 PM
Cool shot. I've never seen Australian picture 'on' picture before.;) :D

Very funny Rich.

I'm not even going to try and explain it.

Hey, no comments on the lounge?
forno
02-26-2007, 02:55 PM
Hey, no comments on the lounge?


Beach house or Nanna's?
cdifoto
02-26-2007, 02:56 PM
Very funny Rich.

I'm not even going to try and explain it.

Hey, no comments on the lounge?

I'd chill in it. Vintage style. :cool:
24Peter
02-26-2007, 02:58 PM
Australians are a bit more environment aware than you UnitedStateians... so my bet is that he may go for an LCD TV ;).

Got one of those too Coldy. What does that make me? :confused:
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 03:00 PM
Beach house or Nanna's?

The latter (good guess).
forno
02-26-2007, 03:07 PM
Nice 50's lounge, would be worth a bit down here in Brunswick/Fitzroy:D
adam75south
02-26-2007, 03:25 PM
Cool shot. I've never seen Australian picture 'on' picture before.;) :D

lmao at picture on picture.
Sungrazer
02-26-2007, 03:30 PM
lmao at picture on picture.

That is indeed funny. Reminds me of my childhood days we'd set up three TVs in the living room for the New Year's Day bowl games (American football for you overseas types).
Honest Gaza
02-26-2007, 03:59 PM
Cool shot. I've never seen Australian picture 'on' picture before.;) :D

Not bad Rich....you guys do have a sense of humour afterall :D

It certainly gives a new meaning to "What's on the box ?"
forno
02-26-2007, 04:03 PM
It certainly gives a new meaning to "What's on the box ?"

The map of Tassie:D
ReF
02-26-2007, 04:22 PM
dude if cw could get his hands on the 16-35 II when it's out and run some comparison to the old one that would be totally awesome! doing so at different FL's and apertures has got to be a PITA though
adam75south
02-26-2007, 05:10 PM
dude if cw could get his hands on the 16-35 II when it's out and run some comparison to the old one that would be totally awesome! doing so at different FL's and apertures has got to be a PITA though

mmmmmm pita. jk jk i got it.
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 05:32 PM
dude if cw could get his hands on the 16-35 II when it's out and run some comparison to the old one that would be totally awesome! doing so at different FL's and apertures has got to be a PITA though

I'l see what I can do.
Vich
02-26-2007, 06:23 PM
Just seems to me like Canon figured:

"If we're going to keep making it, a little minor tweaking will make it better, it won't cost us anything to apply our new technologies, we won't have to keep making as many of that old AF motor that's more expensive to maintain anyway, we'll be able to charge more, and maybe it'll breath some more life into the sales for that zoom range". So; not worth upgrading over but, if you're getting a new one, why not get the latest.

I'm with Rich that CW eventually won't resist the temptation to sell the old one off and get the new, even if for just a modest AF improvement.
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 06:26 PM
I'm with Rich that CW eventually won't resist the temptation to sell the old one off and get the new, even if for just a modest AF improvement.

Am I that predictable?

I mean, I waited at least six months to upgrade the 85/1.2! :o
adam75south
02-26-2007, 06:26 PM
he did it with the 85 f/1.2 II

i don't blame him though.
cwphoto
02-26-2007, 06:29 PM
he did it with the 85 f/1.2 II

i don't blame him though.

That was a bit different.

I had the original 85/1.2 for over ten years. It still worked as well as the day I bought it, but it made sense from a taxation perspective to dump it and go again (it was already fully depreciated).

The 16-35/2.8 still has a 'value' on my books.