« on: July 06, 2014, 01:11:41 PM »
And Kai's classic adjective-laden review of the 16-35 F/4L IS:
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Thanks for all the advice. I think I will go for it as soon as I find a buyer for my 24-105
the dedicated macro lens will have to wait for another day as I am afraid that the limited use it would see doesn't justify the cost. Btw, what would be the approximate working distance to get 0.7 magnification on the dedicated 100mm macros?
which makes it all the more tricky to compare real world.
So it sounds like you've discovered why DxO use the methodology that they do.
Yes, it's also why I never tried to post up real scenes in a scientific test manner, it's tricky. I'm trying this time, but it's very tricky.
You still have to take great care with charts and constant lighting too though, as DxO seems to have not yet discovered though, or perhaps only very slowly discovering (see: 16-35 II having best corner performance at f/2.8, 70-200 2.8 II being the worst at 200mm f/2.8 of all the Canon 70-200 2.8s; 70-300 non-L having better 300mm performance than 70-300L and 300 f/4L, 24-70 f/4 IS supposedly having mediocre edges at 70mm; etc.).
This is very helpful. I'm still using the 17-40 but hope to migrate to the 16-35 f/4 shortly. I've been in the process of trying to figure out the Lee holder/CPL/UWA conundrum. Next step: order the 105 ring and the B&W CPL. Thanks.
Every review/poster of samples has shown similar IQ.
Just to add, I bought a 105 - 77 step up ring and have successfully used this directly on the lens with the Lee polariser with no vignetting at 16mm. Just need to be careful to avoid banding of a blue sky...
Finally, note that the 16-35 f/2.8L II is actually sharp across the frame at f/11 (and pretty close at f/8). So if you have this lens, all you have to do is stop down - which you probably would be doing for DOF in landscape anyway. f/4 is really where the 16-35 f/2.8L II gets trounced in sharpness by the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that is the aperture that would likely be least used by either event or landscape photographers - too slow for event photographers, not enough DOF for landscape.