September 23, 2014, 02:48:54 PM

Author Topic: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?  (Read 1430 times)

aleshaloginov

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:22:41 AM »
Good day,

I wish I had some ultrawide angle lens, say 16-35, but I don't have enough money because I recently bought 35mm 1.4L which makes me incredibly happy.

So the question is whether there is something really close to 16-35L. Don't say 17-40, this lens sucks because of its apperture, I need something faster, wider, lighter and sharper.

Some sigma, tokina?

canon rumors FORUM

canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:22:41 AM »

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1347
    • View Profile
Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2014, 09:01:15 AM »
Try looking at the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8.  It compares well against the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and is a lot less expensive.  However, the best ultrawide zoom for Canon is now the 16-35 f/4 IS.

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 646
    • View Profile
Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2014, 09:45:36 AM »
Good day,

I wish I had some ultrawide angle lens, say 16-35, but I don't have enough money because I recently bought 35mm 1.4L which makes me incredibly happy.

So the question is whether there is something really close to 16-35L. Don't say 17-40, this lens sucks because of its apperture, I need something faster, wider, lighter and sharper.

Some sigma, tokina?

Dave Dugdale did a q quick A/B of the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 to the new Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, and found they were similar in quality - except the tokina can do f/2.8 but does not accept filters due to bulbous front element:
Canon 16-35mm f4 vs Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 Quick Comparison

In fact, his conclusion was that he was keeping the Tokina.  So, I would say this is a worthy option to consider.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 09:47:15 AM by Ruined »

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1347
    • View Profile
Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2014, 09:46:49 PM »

Dave Dugdale did a q quick A/B of the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 to the new Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, and found they were similar in quality - except the tokina can do f/2.8 but does not accept filters due to bulbous front element:

In fact, his conclusion was that he was keeping the Tokina.  So, I would say this is a worthy option to consider.

According to TDP, the Tokina performs best at 16mm.  With both at f/4, the Tokina does have less distortion (as Dugdale commented) but the Canon has less color fringing.  However, that is the Tokina's best focal length.  The corners get worse at longer focal lengths.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 923
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2014, 03:16:16 AM »
I have to agree with random orbits...The best native-mount ultraWA AF lens for a Canon FF is the new Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS.
I sold my Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II to buy one. The Tokina comes completely unglued in comparison  in any other focal lengths and it's 2.8 performance is worse than the Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II. Dave Douglas' "quick" comparison is EXTREMELY misleading. He makes one wonder if he perhaps works for Tokina??? Use The Digital Pictures' comparison tool and seek out other reviews about the Tokina and you will find that you are getting what you pay for there.
I am not opposed to 3rd-party lenses, though as I chose the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art over the Canon equivalent..but right now, Canon's  new wide-angle zoom is the top of the heap if we are looking for the best sharpness and contrast....I don't miss the f2.8 at all...others may feel differently.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 03:18:45 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 Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

tapanit

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2014, 05:03:00 AM »
I wish I had some ultrawide angle lens, say 16-35, but I don't have enough money because I recently bought 35mm 1.4L which makes me incredibly happy.

So the question is whether there is something really close to 16-35L. Don't say 17-40, this lens sucks because of its apperture, I need something faster, wider, lighter and sharper.
Do you need an autofocus zoom or would a manual focus prime do? If so, consider Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It is faster, wider, lighter and sharper than the 17-40/4L, and indeed wider, lighter and sharper although not faster than the 16-35/2.8.

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 923
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2014, 06:59:27 AM »
I wish I had some ultrawide angle lens, say 16-35, but I don't have enough money because I recently bought 35mm 1.4L which makes me incredibly happy.

So the question is whether there is something really close to 16-35L. Don't say 17-40, this lens sucks because of its apperture, I need something faster, wider, lighter and sharper.
Do you need an autofocus zoom or would a manual focus prime do? If so, consider Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It is faster, wider, lighter and sharper than the 17-40/4L, and indeed wider, lighter and sharper although not faster than the 16-35/2.8.

...and much less expensive!  :D
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 Art, 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: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2014, 06:59:27 AM »