December 05, 2016, 05:57:41 AM

Author Topic: LensTip Review - 16-35 f/2.8L III  (Read 506 times)

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3850
  • USM > STM
LensTip Review - 16-35 f/2.8L III
« on: December 04, 2016, 04:45:03 PM »
And the last major review of the 16-35 f/2.8L III is now published:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=493

No surprises in the review based on what we've already heard, and we've finally got nicely charted out coma performance:

  • Best in class for resolution.  A real step forward over the II version, especially on the edges of full frame.

  • Horrific vignetting @ 16mm f/2.8: "It would be difficult to call this situation other than dramatic. Such high vignetting we haven’t seen so far in our tests. At 16 mm and by f/2.8 in the frame corners disappears 75% of light (−4.07 EV)"

  • It's never good for the astro camp when they open with "As long as you work using an APS-C class detector coma shouldn’t be a problem whatsoever." But coma is actually decent (but not great) @ 16mm f/2.8, but at longer FLs it gets worse. But, for comparison:

    • Canon's best wide + fast + zoom for coma, the 24-70 f/2.8L II, is far better for coma @ 24mm f/2.8 than the 16-35 f/2.8L III is anywhere in the focal length range.  And the new 16-35 is not even in the same time zone coma-wise as the 35 f/1.4L II, which is shaping up to be a fairly issue free / no weaknesses / legendary lens (which is why I still contend the astro camp probably wants a 24L III with that same BR gunk in it pronto.)

    • The Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC has consistently lower coma than the 16-35 f/2.8L III.  At the widest end, it's close but the Tamron appears better.

So: nice job to Canon for improving the resolution, but the 16-35 f/2.8L III is not without its drawbacks.  I'm perfectly happy sitting on my 16-35 f/4L IS and skipping this pricey new offering.

- A

canon rumors FORUM

LensTip Review - 16-35 f/2.8L III
« on: December 04, 2016, 04:45:03 PM »

Vern

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
Re: LensTip Review - 16-35 f/2.8L III
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2016, 07:35:26 PM »
I debated whether to get this lens b/c the main rationale was low light indoor pics at wide apetures and the vignetting is somewhat limiting - sharp corners are great, but 4 stops darker doesn't really feel like f2.8, does it? Plan to use it over the holidays and see. I've used it for landscape, and it is great at f8, but I have the 11-24 and 24-70 for that purpose.
1Dx I, 5DSR, 600 II, 300 II, 200 f2, 85 1.2 II, 100 2.8 IS, 24TS II, 70-200 II, 24-70 II, 16-35 III, 100-400 II, 11-24

moreorless

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: LensTip Review - 16-35 f/2.8L III
« Reply #2 on: Today at 01:49:34 AM »
Honestly though do not fast zooms almost always disappoint astro shooters? the Nikon 14-24 being a rare exception.

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3049
    • Flickr
Re: LensTip Review - 16-35 f/2.8L III
« Reply #3 on: Today at 02:07:42 AM »
I believe anyone who has used the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens agrees that that is a fantastic lens. I have used it a lot and it still get more use than my 11-24. At 2.8 it also gives you a poor -4EV vignetting, ref:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=794

It has never really bothered my, so I decided to give the 16-35/2.8L III a try. The reasons being that it is a nice focal lenght for travel and indoor events, plus I can easily use both LEE and screw in filters on it. I don't like the dinner plate filter sizes required for the 11-24 and I only have a CPL for the Zeiss.

I have not had the time to properly test it yet, but first impression is very good.
Canonite and Zeissoholic ...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: LensTip Review - 16-35 f/2.8L III
« Reply #3 on: Today at 02:07:42 AM »