It's because I shot it so low down. The flash has lit the underside of the shoes, removing any shadow.
Upvote
0
Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
- Thread starter Harry Muff
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Harry Muff said:Daniel Flather said:Harry Muff said: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!
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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
probably the flash
and agree the second shot is good though
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
Do a Google search for Canon 16-35 f/2.8II review and you'll have enough reading matter for a full 24 hours.Harry Muff said:Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
Umm... That's it really.
Please!!
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
Upvote
0
I had the I version and upgraded to the II. Still not "stellar" but definitely a good ultra wide angle zoom. Build quality is excellent and IQ is good enough for most uses, thanks to the high contrast and the pleasent color rendition. If you're looking for decent corner sharpness and light vignetting you have to stop down to 5,6 or more. Distorsion is an issue, but that's to be expected from such a lens. At 35mm IQ drops down, corners WO are very very blurred at the long end, until f/5,6. Short MFD, Low CA, no focus shift and no spherical aberration. All in all, it's a good lens, though quite expensive considering its performances...
Upvote
0
Harry Muff said:Umm... That's it really.
Please!!
Aaaand done http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/
Upvote
0
M
M.ST
Guest
In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.
Upvote
0
M.ST said:
I guess that a 16-35/2,8 with the same IQ of the 24-70/2,8 II L would cost a lot more, weigh a lot more and have a big, protruding front lens. And I suppose that Canon thinks it wouldn't feet most users need. Otherwise I really can't understand why Canon has in its lineup a lot of telephoto lenses that cost a fortune, with outstanding performances, while short lenses are never so expensive and so good.
Upvote
0
Harry Muff said:
i own both lenses and love using both! but it's important to understand, your baseline of comparison for sharpness is a world-class, L macro lens
if memory serves me right, even 3rd party so-so macro lenses are still amazing when it comes to sharpness, and is generally a simpler lens design.
UWA from what i understand is very difficult to design and engineer and is prone to distortion, CA, and can be subject to compromises in IQ for a number of reasons.
when it comes to sharpness, many (if not most) zoom lenses will look unfavorable 100%, side by side with a macro. prepare to be dissappointed if the 100L is your baseline
Upvote
0
- Status
