July 26, 2014, 01:27:03 AM

Author Topic: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?  (Read 9429 times)

Harry Muff

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« on: March 29, 2013, 01:37:03 PM »
Umm... That's it really.




Please!!  :)
Some cameras… With Canon written on them. Oh, and some lenses… Also with Canon written on them. Oh, and a shiny camera with Fuji written on it too...

Feel free to have a wander round my flickr

canon rumors FORUM

Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« on: March 29, 2013, 01:37:03 PM »

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2557
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2013, 03:20:04 PM »
I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Harry Muff

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2013, 03:23:32 PM »
I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



Thanks dude. Already seen that.


I just thought it would a good addition to the list of already reviewed gear by CR.




I've actually recently bought it and I'm not 100% convinced by it and wanted the CR take on it.
Some cameras… With Canon written on them. Oh, and some lenses… Also with Canon written on them. Oh, and a shiny camera with Fuji written on it too...

Feel free to have a wander round my flickr

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2557
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2013, 03:28:11 PM »
I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



Thanks dude. Already seen that.


I just thought it would a good addition to the list of already reviewed gear by CR.




I've actually recently bought it and I'm not 100% convinced by it and wanted the CR take on it.


Gotcha.  I have it, and I agree there are some problems, but there are some really good things too.  There's distortion (ends and barrel) and it's certainly not as sharp as the TS-17 and the 24L II, but I enjoy the flexibility.  I tested it and the 24-70L II at 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm, and the 24-70L II beats the crap out of its resolving power.  But if you need 16-24, it's better than the 17-40.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Harry Muff

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2013, 03:32:46 PM »
Agreed.


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.
Some cameras… With Canon written on them. Oh, and some lenses… Also with Canon written on them. Oh, and a shiny camera with Fuji written on it too...

Feel free to have a wander round my flickr

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13552
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2013, 05:13:22 PM »
It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise...

Are suggesting the lens is causing the image noise?
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Harry Muff

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2013, 06:55:19 PM »
It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise...

Are suggesting the lens is causing the image noise?


I know what you're saying, Neuro, and I know that a lens can't cause noise. It's just not what I was expecting after dropping all that money on it.


It's been love/hate so far. I'll try to knock up some crops to show what I mean and see if it's just me expecting too much.
Some cameras… With Canon written on them. Oh, and some lenses… Also with Canon written on them. Oh, and a shiny camera with Fuji written on it too...

Feel free to have a wander round my flickr

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2013, 06:55:19 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13552
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2013, 07:22:57 PM »
@ Harry Muff - I hear you.  I like the 16-35L II - it's a useful lens.  I wouldn't call it 'stellar' or 'excellent'. It's the best FF UWA zoom that Canon offers, so if you need a UWA zoom, that's where it's at.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

danski0224

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
    • Some of my Work in Progress
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2013, 08:49:46 PM »
Umm... That's it really.




Please!!  :)

Just had to say awesome user name.

  ;D
Some of my Work in Progress..... www.dftimages.com

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3672
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.500px.com/home
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2013, 09:20:07 PM »
Canon needs to release mrk III or 14-24 that at least = to Nikon or better :'(
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1372
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2013, 04:36:58 PM »
The 16-35mm is a great lens overall, but definitely has it's flaws.  It's not that sharp wide open, but around f/4-f/5.6 it gets much better.  Also it's not that great in the middle, 16mm and 35mm are alright, but 24mm can look kinda rough.  It's the best Canon has in that range that's for sure, but use a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and you'll see how much better it could be.
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2013, 09:56:00 AM »
It's on my "to do" list.  I've actually never used it. Kind of scared to, since I own the 17-40 f/4 L and without a doubt I'll want to upgrade after trying it out  :P

synthetiq

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2013, 04:52:31 AM »
Please let me know if I should create a new, separate post for this, but:

Reading through this thread has given me some concern.  The 16-35 2.8L II is on my list for my next lens purchase.  I want to cover the focal range at 2.8 (16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8 ) and I already have the 24-70.

The 16-35 would primarily be for landscape photography and night/sky exposures.  From reading this post, it makes it seem that the 16-35 2.8L II doesn't deserve the "L" when you look at results, especially compared to the 17-40 f4L.  Is this true? 

Can anyone recommend a good review that compares the 16-35 to the 17-40?  While the 1mm is doable, the extra light from a 2.8 would be missed.

Thanks for any opinions

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2013, 04:52:31 AM »

Harry Muff

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2013, 07:56:41 PM »
I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too.
The lens is rather good and deserving of its L title.

Here's one of mine from a couple of days ago:




Melissa Zebra by Marked Improvement Photo




Also, here's one of the threads discussing it and the EF17-40 f4L:

   EF 16-35 f2.8L Vs. EF 17-40 f4L Thread
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 08:30:57 PM by Harry Muff »
Some cameras… With Canon written on them. Oh, and some lenses… Also with Canon written on them. Oh, and a shiny camera with Fuji written on it too...

Feel free to have a wander round my flickr

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 793
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2013, 09:44:57 AM »
It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise...

Are suggesting the lens is causing the image noise?


I know what you're saying, Neuro, and I know that a lens can't cause noise. It's just not what I was expecting after dropping all that money on it.


It's been love/hate so far. I'll try to knock up some crops to show what I mean and see if it's just me expecting too much.

Neuro is on it, Harry. If you are going to grill this lens (WA Zooms Canon's weak point), you are going to have to step up to Canon or Zeiss Primes ( and choose carefully!), to get better IQ...... you are going to stay within this brand. It's just the way it is right now...Perhaps a 14-24 will come down the pike from Canon, but expect it to cost well over $2000. We shall see....
« Last Edit: April 20, 2013, 10:42:54 AM by infared »
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2013, 09:44:57 AM »