August 30, 2014, 06:22:20 AM

Author Topic: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?  (Read 9764 times)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1463
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2013, 11:01:45 PM »
The edges are softISH. Even at f8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2013, 11:01:45 PM »

luciolepri

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
    • Lucio Lepri - Director and script writer
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2013, 11:24:46 PM »
I had the I version and upgraded to the II. Still not "stellar" but definitely a good ultra wide angle zoom. Build quality is excellent and IQ is good enough for most uses, thanks to the high contrast and the pleasent color rendition. If you're looking for decent corner sharpness and light vignetting you have to stop down to 5,6 or more. Distorsion is an issue, but that's to be expected from such a lens. At 35mm IQ drops down, corners WO are very very blurred at the long end, until f/5,6. Short MFD, Low CA, no focus shift and no spherical aberration. All in all, it's a good lens, though quite expensive considering its performances...

dgatwood

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 676
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2013, 03:05:39 PM »

Can anyone compare the 16-35 lens on a full-frame camera to the crop-body-angle-equivalent EF-S 10-22 on a crop-body camera?  Similar sharpness?  Better?  Worse?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13965
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2013, 03:12:37 PM »
Can anyone compare the 16-35 lens on a full-frame camera to the crop-body-angle-equivalent EF-S 10-22 on a crop-body camera?  Similar sharpness?  Better?  Worse?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2013, 01:37:44 AM »
In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.

candyman

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1216
  • The best critic sits in front of the camera
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2013, 03:19:12 AM »
In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.


And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?

5DIII w/grip  |  6D  |  16-35L IS  |  24-70VC  |  24-105L  |  70-200 f/2.8L IS II  |  70-300L  |  35 f/2 IS  |  50A  |  135L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2013, 03:19:12 AM »

luciolepri

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
    • Lucio Lepri - Director and script writer
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #37 on: June 15, 2013, 07:21:44 AM »
In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.

I guess that a 16-35/2,8 with the same IQ of the 24-70/2,8 II L would cost a lot more, weigh a lot more and have a big, protruding front lens. And I suppose that Canon thinks it wouldn't feet most users need. Otherwise I really can't understand why Canon has in its lineup a lot of telephoto lenses that cost a fortune, with outstanding performances, while short lenses are never so expensive and so good.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1816
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #38 on: June 15, 2013, 08:21:05 AM »
In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.


And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?
Replacement of 16-35 II L = 16-35 III L
12(14)-24 f/2.8 = new lens (welcome of course but still new lens, not a replacement)
« Last Edit: June 15, 2013, 11:08:39 AM by tron »

BL

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
  • Great gear is good. Good technique is better.
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #39 on: June 15, 2013, 09:16:02 AM »
It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise and don't seem that sharp.

I suppose I just need to learn how to use it after using a 100L constantly for months.

i own both lenses and love using both!  but it's important to understand, your baseline of comparison for sharpness is a world-class, L macro lens

if memory serves me right, even 3rd party so-so macro lenses are still amazing when it comes to sharpness, and is generally a simpler lens design.

UWA from what i understand is very difficult to design and engineer and is prone to distortion, CA, and can be subject to compromises in IQ for a number of reasons.

when it comes to sharpness, many (if not most) zoom lenses will look unfavorable 100%, side by side with a macro.  prepare to be dissappointed if the 100L is your baseline   :(
M, 5Dc, 1Dx, some lenses, a few lights

candyman

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1216
  • The best critic sits in front of the camera
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #40 on: June 15, 2013, 11:43:57 AM »
In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.


And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?
Replacement of 16-35 II L = 16-35 III L
12(14)-24 f/2.8 = new lens (welcome of course but still new lens, not a replacement)


Some people replace their 16-35 2.8 II with a 12(14)-24 f/2.8. For them, that's a replacement  ???   ;)
5DIII w/grip  |  6D  |  16-35L IS  |  24-70VC  |  24-105L  |  70-200 f/2.8L IS II  |  70-300L  |  35 f/2 IS  |  50A  |  135L

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1816
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #41 on: June 16, 2013, 07:29:45 AM »
In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.


And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?
Replacement of 16-35 II L = 16-35 III L
12(14)-24 f/2.8 = new lens (welcome of course but still new lens, not a replacement)


Some people replace their 16-35 2.8 II with a 12(14)-24 f/2.8. For them, that's a replacement  ???   ;)
For them anything can be a replacement like a fixed wide angle lens  ::)
For Canon it's certainly not  ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #41 on: June 16, 2013, 07:29:45 AM »