October 25, 2014, 05:40:29 PM

Author Topic: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?  (Read 12005 times)

davidrf

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2013, 02:40:44 PM »
I googled but a bunch of pages I found were confusing. On the Digital-Picture page everything is clearer...

thanks a lot, so it's a 2012 :)
Ekam Sat

Canon 6D - Canon 16-35 L II - Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L - Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 - Samyang 14 f/2.8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2013, 02:40:44 PM »

wayno

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2013, 04:25:41 PM »
Speaking again of sunstars/starbursts, I've always liked the tight glow of the 17-40 f8 stars and whilst the 24-70 II f8 stars look amazing, they're very, very distinctive and tend to stick out of an image more than the atmospheric glow exhibuted by the 17-40. Coming from a 10-22 originally, the starbursts on that we're quite messy in comparison to both of the above, with the bursts usually accompanied by dollops of off-centre flare and sometimes specular mini flares.

davidrf

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2013, 04:32:58 PM »
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jzpwm62lnja0gqk/ocWBSZ3UgF/_MG_0014.cr2
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jzpwm62lnja0gqk/m7g_93WQbF/_MG_0015.cr2

Could someone please download these two raws and thell me what you think about it? They are shot with a 5D mk2. Is it me or there's a bit much softness on the borders, and a strange noise that at 200 ISO should not be there? Thanks a lot!
Ekam Sat

Canon 6D - Canon 16-35 L II - Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L - Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 - Samyang 14 f/2.8

dirtcastle

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2013, 07:38:31 PM »
Speaking again of sunstars/starbursts, I've always liked the tight glow of the 17-40 f8 stars and whilst the 24-70 II f8 stars look amazing, they're very, very distinctive and tend to stick out of an image more than the atmospheric glow exhibuted by the 17-40. Coming from a 10-22 originally, the starbursts on that we're quite messy in comparison to both of the above, with the bursts usually accompanied by dollops of off-centre flare and sometimes specular mini flares.

To each his/her own. I find the stars distracting and the only way to reduce them is to open up the aperture. I think people like them for the same reason people like heart-shaped bokeh: novelty.

GoodVendettaPhotography

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #49 on: June 13, 2013, 11:40:26 PM »
The short answer is: no.
5D Mark III | 7D | 17mm TS-E f/4 L | 24-70mm f/2.8 L II | 70-200mm f/2.8 L II IS | 50mm f/1.2 L | 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 135mm f/2 L | ST-E3 | 600 ex (x3) | 2x TC III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« Reply #49 on: June 13, 2013, 11:40:26 PM »