Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
- Thread starter Harry Muff
- Start date
- Status
I know it's not the same, but for in the meantime if you are interested:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
Thanks dude. Already seen that.
I just thought it would a good addition to the list of already reviewed gear by CR.
I've actually recently bought it and I'm not 100% convinced by it and wanted the CR take on it.
Upvote
0
Harry Muff said:
Gotcha. I have it, and I agree there are some problems, but there are some really good things too. There's distortion (ends and barrel) and it's certainly not as sharp as the TS-17 and the 24L II, but I enjoy the flexibility. I tested it and the 24-70L II at 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm, and the 24-70L II beats the crap out of its resolving power. But if you need 16-24, it's better than the 17-40.
Upvote
0
Agreed.
It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise and don't seem that sharp.
I suppose I just need to learn how to use it after using a 100L constantly for months.
It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise and don't seem that sharp.
I suppose I just need to learn how to use it after using a 100L constantly for months.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I know what you're saying, Neuro, and I know that a lens can't cause noise. It's just not what I was expecting after dropping all that money on it.
It's been love/hate so far. I'll try to knock up some crops to show what I mean and see if it's just me expecting too much.
Upvote
0
The 16-35mm is a great lens overall, but definitely has it's flaws. It's not that sharp wide open, but around f/4-f/5.6 it gets much better. Also it's not that great in the middle, 16mm and 35mm are alright, but 24mm can look kinda rough. It's the best Canon has in that range that's for sure, but use a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and you'll see how much better it could be.
Upvote
0
It's on my "to do" list. I've actually never used it. Kind of scared to, since I own the 17-40 f/4 L and without a doubt I'll want to upgrade after trying it out 
Upvote
0
Please let me know if I should create a new, separate post for this, but:
Reading through this thread has given me some concern. The 16-35 2.8L II is on my list for my next lens purchase. I want to cover the focal range at 2.8 (16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8 ) and I already have the 24-70.
The 16-35 would primarily be for landscape photography and night/sky exposures. From reading this post, it makes it seem that the 16-35 2.8L II doesn't deserve the "L" when you look at results, especially compared to the 17-40 f4L. Is this true?
Can anyone recommend a good review that compares the 16-35 to the 17-40? While the 1mm is doable, the extra light from a 2.8 would be missed.
Thanks for any opinions
Reading through this thread has given me some concern. The 16-35 2.8L II is on my list for my next lens purchase. I want to cover the focal range at 2.8 (16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8 ) and I already have the 24-70.
The 16-35 would primarily be for landscape photography and night/sky exposures. From reading this post, it makes it seem that the 16-35 2.8L II doesn't deserve the "L" when you look at results, especially compared to the 17-40 f4L. Is this true?
Can anyone recommend a good review that compares the 16-35 to the 17-40? While the 1mm is doable, the extra light from a 2.8 would be missed.
Thanks for any opinions
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
Harry Muff said:
Neuro is on it, Harry. If you are going to grill this lens (WA Zooms Canon's weak point), you are going to have to step up to Canon or Zeiss Primes ( and choose carefully!), to get better IQ...... you are going to stay within this brand. It's just the way it is right now...Perhaps a 14-24 will come down the pike from Canon, but expect it to cost well over $2000. We shall see....
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
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.
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.
Upvote
0
- Status
