October 23, 2014, 10:55:15 AM

Author Topic: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?  (Read 10226 times)

Daniel Flather

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2013, 03:13:35 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

My eyes tell me she's shopped into the photo.  Yeah, my glasses are clean.
| 5D3 | 8-15L | 24L II | 35L | 50L | 85L II | 100/2.8 | 200/2L | EOS M | 22 STM |

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2013, 03:13:35 PM »

Harry Muff

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2013, 09:46:03 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

My eyes tell me she's shopped into the photo.  Yeah, my glasses are clean.


Well give them another wipe. It's one image. That's what  flash in daylight looks like. Especially when you mess with both the exposure and flash compensation.
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

Mick

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
  • Wildlife, Landscape and above all sport.
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2013, 06:33:47 PM »
All I can tell you about mine is this. Ive dropped it three times onto rocks. Its been covered in sand, sea and rain. It works perfectly. Is it the worlds sharpest lens?  Center wide open its excellent, stop it down and its pretty good across the frame, good enough I cant see any problems on my A3 prints. Its not a 500 f4 but its never going to be. For a wide angle its very good. It has its distortion problems but again its a wide angle and a quick tweek in lightroom and its gone. I managed to use a 14mm prime to take some shots at the same time as my 16-35. Both pics look exactly the same. Ok ones a little wider. Tones and colours pretty much identical. Sharpness? Well I couldnt tell any differance until I zoomed way in and the prime had it, just. But a little post sharpening and theres not much differance. Again I had to zoom way in. Can the human eye detect the differance at the sizes I print is doubtfull. Perhaps edge sharpness was just a bit less than the prime at f16-f22 but its very small on my prints. If I did print bigger stuff then Id buy the prime otherwise I love the 16-35, does what it says on the tin and does it pretty well.
1DX, 1DMK4, 1DS3, 7D, 16-35 F2.8 mk2, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8 is L mk2, 500 f4 mk2, 300 f2.8 mk2 1x4 and 2x mk3 extenders.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4468
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2013, 11:51:47 PM »
I think most of the complaints about the 16-35mm L II are the result of the particularly stellar Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. The Nikon 14-24 is an exceptionally sharp lens, particularly at 14mm. It was kind of a game-changer when it hit the streets. Until that lens, the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was an excellent lens with the best quality zoom you could get at that wide of a focal length.

It is a bit dated now, from an optical design perspective, relative to both the Nikon 14-24 as well as Canon's newer generation of lenses from the last couple of years. I bet the CA could be dealt with by using some fluorite elements. The corner softness could probably be corrected with an aspheric element group. I think Canon could do much better, if they tried again today. Bring it up to snuff with the rest of the new lenses.

Daniel Flather

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2013, 12:04:03 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

My eyes tell me she's shopped into the photo.  Yeah, my glasses are clean.


Well give them another wipe. It's one image. That's what  flash in daylight looks like. Especially when you mess with both the exposure and flash compensation.

Yes, I shoot the same style of photos.  It's her feet that look layered.  But if it's one image and you shot it, then it is.
| 5D3 | 8-15L | 24L II | 35L | 50L | 85L II | 100/2.8 | 200/2L | EOS M | 22 STM |

Harry Muff

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2013, 01:48:57 PM »
It's because I shot it so low down. The flash has lit the underside of the shoes, removing any shadow.
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

hsbn

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2013, 02:33:17 PM »
Quote
Yes, I shoot the same style of photos.  It's her feet that look layered.  But if it's one image and you shot it, then it is.
It's not photoshop, just bad flash techniques more like on camera flash (sorry, no offense even if it sounds harsh).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2013, 02:33:17 PM »

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2013, 06:11:00 PM »
Ok, here's my thoughts on the 16-35 II L:
If I shoot at f2.8, I kind of want blurry corners and heavy vigneting...it saves me adding them later in post. If I want sharp corners....then I stop down because it's likely I'm going to need the depth of field. I wish this lens has less ghosting and flare in harsh sunlight (ie sunrise / sunsets) but I adore the star bursts I get with this lens. It's sharp enough for most professional uses and my copy is probably my most used lens and it shows!
It's a work horse of a lens and it's built to last. The lens hood is a waste of plastic...what is the point?
Using 82mm thin filters allows polarisation right down to 16mm....nice! Oh, due to it's lack of a bulbous front element, I can fit filters....that's a real plus point for landscapes. It's weather sealed...another plus point, it's a fast f2.8 and it's gives a brighter metering than many f2.8 lenses. It's AF is quick and accurate.

The optics are designed to be partially corrected, which is exactly the most useful for an ultra wide lens.
A Sigma 12-24mm mk I is a fully corrected altra wide, it's uncanny in that straight lines really do stay straight and it's a great architecture lens as a result...but photographing people can be a problem because circles become egg shaped towards the outer edges of the frame. So photographing people becomes an issue...due to circular distortion. A fisheye does the opposite, straight lines bend but circles stay...well circular! So Canon chose a perfect compromise with this lens, it walks a great line (sorry for the pun) between the two camps and allows the photographer to post correct either way without too much loss of resolution. It can shoot architecture and people as a result...unlike the Siggi or Nikkor 14-24mm. Versatility is the key to this lens and that's what makes it so good, not the lens charts that's poked in front of it. Sure there's a lot of room for improvement, but this lens does so much so well. It's one of the most useful professional lenses that there currently is available on the Canon mount.
Sure it's not the most exotic or sharpest of Canon's zoom lenses. But it's certainly very versatile and can shoot and lot of different genres with easy....in short....it gets the shots and brings the money in.

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4520
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2013, 07:56:18 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

My eyes tell me she's shopped into the photo.  Yeah, my glasses are clean.


Well give them another wipe. It's one image. That's what  flash in daylight looks like. Especially when you mess with both the exposure and flash compensation.

you got to shoot Michael Jackson! :o
APS-H Fanboy

Harry Muff

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2013, 08:24:31 PM »
Come again? That's my fiancé.




Melissa Love by Marked Improvement Photo
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 08:29:26 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

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2013, 08:39:48 PM »
I think he was referring to the flash technique used.  It wasn't the best but no big deal, I make mistakes too.  I just look at mine and try to learn from it.  The second photo is really amazing and well done so it's not like you don't know what you're doing.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4520
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2013, 09:31:27 PM »
yeah sorry just the shot in the street does look alot like michael jackson ;)
probably the flash
and agree the second shot is good though :)
APS-H Fanboy

CharlieB

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2013, 10:00:00 PM »
I've got the 16-35L II and have had a few issues.

First, my 20/2.8, 28/1.8 are sharper, crisper in the center.  I've not really taken a good look at the edges.

My own 16-35L II is soft on detail at 16mm, but retains good contrast.  It looks sharper than it really is.

By 24mm it sharpens up considerably, and is not too bad (but not stellar) at 35mm.

The primes kick its poverbial butt.

Falloff... not an issue on my 5Dii or 7D which are correctable for that.

My own copy shows about -6 focus correction at 35mm, and maybe (hard to tell) +2 at 16mm.  My bodies will only correct for the entire spectrum of a zoom lens, so I set it at -5 as a compromise.

Its not an OMG THATS SHARP!!!! lens.  Its more than adequate though, and retains good contrast and color, and low flare through all its zoom range.  Flare is pretty well corrected too.

I shoot it, because its 16mm, and I find that I use that low low end of focal length quite a lot.  I can still zoom in for a 35mm focal length (my favorite).  It might as well be a 16 or 35 rather than a 16-35 zoom.  I rarely use the intermediate focal lengths.

And yah, I'd get it again in a heartbeat if it was lost stolen damaged etc etc etc

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2013, 10:00:00 PM »

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1606
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2013, 10:25:09 PM »
Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
Umm... That's it really.
Please!!  :)
Do a Google search for Canon 16-35 f/2.8II review and you'll have enough reading matter for a full 24 hours.
And you'll learn a lot about the 16-35...

FWIW, my experience with the 16-35 f/2.8II is that is is a competent though imperfect lens. I think you'll see that born out when you read some of the 100's of reviews for this lens that you will find on the www.

-PW

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4194
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2013, 11:00:25 PM »
I'm thinking selling my and use that money toward to 85L f1.2 II since I shoot alot of candid. I good with 17-40mm, f8 - f16
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2013, 11:00:25 PM »