September 15, 2014, 06:03:14 AM

Poll

What is the maximum filter size you'd accept in exchange for 25% better corner sharpness

Bulbous element - I wouldn't mind not being able to use screw-in filters in exchange for sharpness.
Over 86mm - I don't mind a massive filter thread diameter in exchange for sharpness.
86mm - I'd go a step up for sharpness!
82mm - The 16-35 II is already big enough!
77mm and under - the 16-35 II is too big!
I will never have any interest in a 16-35 f/2.8L III

Author Topic: POLL: 16-35mm f/2.8L III - filter size vs sharpness (hypothetical)  (Read 3313 times)

dgatwood

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 693
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: POLL: 16-35mm f/2.8L III - filter size vs sharpness (hypothetical)
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2014, 02:25:18 PM »
Flawed assumption that filter size has any direct correlation to image sharpness.

It might under some circumstances if bumping up a lens size gets them the ability to build an f/2.8 with IS without introducing vignetting.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: POLL: 16-35mm f/2.8L III - filter size vs sharpness (hypothetical)
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2014, 02:25:18 PM »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8608
    • View Profile
Re: POLL: 16-35mm f/2.8L III - filter size vs sharpness (hypothetical)
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2014, 03:13:24 PM »
Flawed assumption that filter size has any direct correlation to image sharpness.

It might under some circumstances if bumping up a lens size gets them the ability to build an f/2.8 with IS without introducing vignetting.

 
 
Its the lens design that determines sharpness. The size of the filter does not improve or reduce sharpness, just vignetting.  The quality of a filter determines how much the image is degraded.

dgatwood

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 693
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: POLL: 16-35mm f/2.8L III - filter size vs sharpness (hypothetical)
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2014, 04:29:55 PM »
Flawed assumption that filter size has any direct correlation to image sharpness.

It might under some circumstances if bumping up a lens size gets them the ability to build an f/2.8 with IS without introducing vignetting.

 
 
Its the lens design that determines sharpness. The size of the filter does not improve or reduce sharpness, just vignetting.  The quality of a filter determines how much the image is degraded.

My point was that image stabilization can make the difference between a crisp shot and a soft shot caused by smearing, and I would expect the front lens to be larger when you add IS, because it has to be able to produce an image without dark edges whenever the IS system is pointing the internal parts of the lens in a different direction.  And if the front glass is larger, the filter size has to be proportionally larger to avoid vignetting.  So if moving up by one filter size enables them to add IS to the lens, then in low light when handheld, crispness could potentially depend, in a manner of speaking, on the filter size.

timcz

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: POLL: 16-35mm f/2.8L III - filter size vs sharpness (hypothetical)
« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2014, 06:19:22 PM »
I'd be suprised if a 16-35 2.8 v3 will come at all. As much as i'd love one to, I suspect the next UWA we will see will be something similar to Nikons 14-24 with a fairly non-filterable bulbous element.

I will likely be selling my v2 in favour of the new f4. I dont need the IS at all, but really want the sharper corners. I hardly ever shoot at 2.8, aside from when I do some astro type stuff, but I can likely bump up the iso an extra stop to cover that.

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 626
    • View Profile
Re: POLL: 16-35mm f/2.8L III - filter size vs sharpness (hypothetical)
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2014, 11:26:18 AM »
I'd be suprised if a 16-35 2.8 v3 will come at all. As much as i'd love one to, I suspect the next UWA we will see will be something similar to Nikons 14-24 with a fairly non-filterable bulbous element.

I would think this is most likely, as I'm sure users of the 14-24 may be unhappy if the new lens only goes to 16mm.  And, given the size difference between the 14-24 and 16-35, they are aimed at different markets.

Since the 14-24 range is a gap for Canon, I would assume they would fill that first and wait at least a few years before revisiting the 16-35 II to avoid one sabotaging the sales of the other.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: POLL: 16-35mm f/2.8L III - filter size vs sharpness (hypothetical)
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2014, 11:26:18 AM »