LensTip Review - 16-35 f/2.8L III

[ahsanford]

And the last major review of the 16-35 f/2.8L III is now published:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=493

No surprises in the review based on what we've already heard, and we've finally got nicely charted out coma performance:

• Best in class for resolution. A real step forward over the II version, especially on the edges of full frame.
  
  
• Horrific vignetting @ 16mm f/2.8: "It would be difficult to call this situation other than dramatic. Such high vignetting we haven’t seen so far in our tests. At 16 mm and by f/2.8 in the frame corners disappears 75% of light (−4.07 EV)"
  
  
• It's never good for the astro camp when they open with "As long as you work using an APS-C class detector coma shouldn’t be a problem whatsoever." But coma is actually decent (but not great) @ 16mm f/2.8, but at longer FLs it gets worse. But, for comparison:
  
  • Canon's best wide + fast + zoom for coma, the 24-70 f/2.8L II, is far better for coma @ 24mm f/2.8 than the 16-35 f/2.8L III is anywhere in the focal length range. And the new 16-35 is not even in the same time zone coma-wise as the 35 f/1.4L II, which is shaping up to be a fairly issue free / no weaknesses / legendary lens (which is why I still contend the astro camp probably wants a 24L III with that same BR gunk in it pronto.)
    
    
  • The Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC has consistently lower coma than the 16-35 f/2.8L III. At the widest end, it's close but the Tamron appears better.

So: nice job to Canon for improving the resolution, but the 16-35 f/2.8L III is not without its drawbacks. I'm perfectly happy sitting on my 16-35 f/4L IS and skipping this pricey new offering.

- A

 

[Vern]

I debated whether to get this lens b/c the main rationale was low light indoor pics at wide apetures and the vignetting is somewhat limiting - sharp corners are great, but 4 stops darker doesn't really feel like f2.8, does it? Plan to use it over the holidays and see. I've used it for landscape, and it is great at f8, but I have the 11-24 and 24-70 for that purpose.

 

[moreorless]

Honestly though do not fast zooms almost always disappoint astro shooters? the Nikon 14-24 being a rare exception.

 

[Eldar]

I believe anyone who has used the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens agrees that that is a fantastic lens. I have used it a lot and it still get more use than my 11-24. At 2.8 it also gives you a poor -4EV vignetting, ref:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=794

It has never really bothered my, so I decided to give the 16-35/2.8L III a try. The reasons being that it is a nice focal lenght for travel and indoor events, plus I can easily use both LEE and screw in filters on it. I don't like the dinner plate filter sizes required for the 11-24 and I only have a CPL for the Zeiss.

I have not had the time to properly test it yet, but first impression is very good.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I believe anyone who has used the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens agrees that that is a fantastic lens. I have used it a lot and it still get more use than my 11-24. At 2.8 it also gives you a poor -4EV vignetting, ref:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=794

It has never really bothered my, so I decided to give the 16-35/2.8L III a try. The reasons being that it is a nice focal lenght for travel and indoor events, plus I can easily use both LEE and screw in filters on it. I don't like the dinner plate filter sizes required for the 11-24 and I only have a CPL for the Zeiss.

I have not had the time to properly test it yet, but first impression is very good.

Look forward to some practical examples once you get in shooting with it. Best regards.

 

[ahsanford]

Honestly though do not fast zooms almost always disappoint astro shooters? the Nikon 14-24 being a rare exception.

That Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC is supposed to be decent. But it's DOA for me as I usually shoot daylight landscapes and front-filtering is not (conveniently) possible.

Seems to me that you need to get somewhat specialized for ultrawide zooms:

16-35 f/2.8L for events, sports, reportage --> can also shoot traditional landscapes, but you'll almost never use f/2.8 for that.

11-24 f/4L for architecture or if you have ultra-ultrawide sickness

Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC for astro (...if you insist on using a zoom for that)

And the 16-35 f/4L IS for traditional landscape work.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I believe anyone who has used the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens agrees that that is a fantastic lens. I have used it a lot and it still get more use than my 11-24. At 2.8 it also gives you a poor -4EV vignetting, ref:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=794

It has never really bothered my, so I decided to give the 16-35/2.8L III a try. The reasons being that it is a nice focal lenght for travel and indoor events, plus I can easily use both LEE and screw in filters on it. I don't like the dinner plate filter sizes required for the 11-24 and I only have a CPL for the Zeiss.

I have not had the time to properly test it yet, but first impression is very good.

I hear you on front-filtering. That's a hammerlock must for me. Bulky outriggers and dinner plate sized filters are not for me. But the vignetting is a tough call. Re: the 16-35 f/2.8L III...

Pro: It's the sharpest ultrawide zoom Canon has ever made, likely the sharpest out there of any FF UWA zoom lens. The vignetting is only really problematic on the wide end, particularly 16mm f/2.8. So if you don't shoot that length / aperture often, you might have a very fine tool for your needs.

Con: A lot of people buy this class of lens and only shoot it at f/2.8 (events, sports folks). Further, if you are buying this lens as 'the best' UWA Canon sells, and you bought it for applications that don't require f/2.8, 'the best' isn't the night and day better product than the cheaper class of L that sits alongside it. If you never plan to shoot at f/2.8, you should 100% buy the 16-35mm f/4L IS instead. That just-as-good-but-slower option like the 70-200s have didn't exist before the f/4L IS was put out (and no, the 17-40L did not cover that base so effectively), but now it does, so I'd recommend that instead for the traditional landscaper.

So I stick to my assessment. If you need f/2.8, you'll get this new lens. If you don't, don't get it. If you are an all-arounder person who wants one lens that is great at everything, I contend it does not exist in the UWA zoom segment and you need to prioritize your needs, lower your expectations, or carry multiple UWA zooms.

- A

 

[LordofTackle]

I hear you on front-filtering. That's a hammerlock must for me. Bulky outriggers and dinner plate sized filters are not for me. But the vignetting is a tough call. Re: the 16-35 f/2.8L III...

+1 That's why the Tamron is DOA for me too.

So I stick to my assessment. If you need f/2.8, you'll get this new lens. If you don't, don't get it. If you are an all-arounder person who wants one lens that is great at everything, I contend it does not exist in the UWA zoom segment and you need to prioritize your needs, lower your expectations, or carry multiple UWA zooms.

Here I disagree with you. I think the new 16-35 is just that. Re: the vignette, at f/4 it has the same amount as the f/4 lens, but is sharper...but you still have the opportunity to shoot it at f/2.8
The only downside for some people will be the missing IS (not for me personally). And coma seems to be OK although not super good.
of course making a lens that checks ALL that points (extremely sharp to corners, f/2.8, IS, front filterable, low coma) is probably impossible.

Just my 2 c
Sebastian

 

[Vern]

UWA tradeoffs are still a reality, for sure. I now have 4 lenses that include 24mm, but all have their own 'special purpose'. I love the 11-24 (see that lens thread for some examples) b/c in certain landscapes, the scene I want to capture is that immense (can't wait to return to Canyonlands with this one). However, I am not going to fiddle with the filters for this lens either, so the 16-35 gives me a ready solution when I need a filter, while HDR and some PS work can adjust for some aspects (not all) of not using a filter on the 11-24. The 24 TS is absolutely lovely to work with and can render scenes (even landscape - trees stay vertical, foreground DOF w/o diffraction, etc.) that the others cannot. 24-70 is ideal for many applications and a great walk around lens. I will see if the 16-35 III is good enough at 2.8 indoors to keep, but I suspect I will be happy enough with it on the 1Dx (less noisy files to worry about in lifting the vignetting) and for a landscape lens when I don't need the 11-24 to keep it. Since I work off a tripod 90% of the time for landscape, the 16-35 f4 IS (though a great lens), didn't tempt me.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I'm in this boat. I had EVERY intention of upgrading to the MK III for some time while I was using the old 2.8 II version. Then the f4 IS showed up and I decided to pick it up so I could actually get decent quality wide-angle landscapes, even at the cost of losing a stop. Turns out I really liked the IQ (for the most part) and IS on this new lens and eventually I never used the 2.8 II any more...and sold it a couple of months ago.

Now that I already have a better lens for the most part, I'm wondering if the new 2.8 III is worth the upgrade or not...2.8 is tempting, I admit...but at the same time, I'd miss the IS. The f4's corner performance at 16mm still leaves a little to be desired, so if the 2.8 is better in this regard that'll be cool...also, if overall sharpness at 35mm is better.

 

[Sabaki]

Is the 4 stop vignette as important to the event, reportage and lowlight crowd as it is for the landscape crowd?

Stopping down to f/8.0 - f/12, the f/2.8mkiii equals or bests every UWA out there but I'm not sure who of the event guys compose important subject matter into the far corners?

 

[ahsanford]

Is the 4 stop vignette as important to the event, reportage and lowlight crowd as it is for the landscape crowd?

Stopping down to f/8.0 - f/12, the f/2.8mkiii equals or bests every UWA out there but I'm not sure who of the event guys compose important subject matter into the far corners?

Depends on what you shoot.

Astro: one would think this lens is DOA. Pushing a high ISO long exposure an additional 4+ stops to clean up the corners is a non-starter.

Sports / Reportage / Events / Environmental Portraiture: Do-able. Many will buy this as 'the new UWA f/2.8' and just learn to work with its limitations. Given how sharp it is, this camp will buy it and use the crap out of it.

Landscape: For tripod based landscape work at ISO 100, this vignetting is a complete non-issue as you tend to live in f/8 to f/11 for that kind of work. However, if you live in f/8 to f/11, why buy this lens with the 16-35 f/4L IS is just about as sharp, is lighter, and costs half as much? (My guess a lot of enthusiasts are in an 'I want one 16-35 to do everything well' and will be torn between the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L III.)

- A

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Is the 4 stop vignette as important to the event, reportage and lowlight crowd as it is for the landscape crowd?

Stopping down to f/8.0 - f/12, the f/2.8mkiii equals or bests every UWA out there but I'm not sure who of the event guys compose important subject matter into the far corners?

Depends on what you shoot.

Astro: one would think this lens is DOA. Pushing a high ISO long exposure an additional 4+ stops to clean up the corners is a non-starter.

Sports / Reportage / Events / Environmental Portraiture: Do-able. Many will buy this as 'the new UWA f/2.8' and just learn to work with its limitations. Given how sharp it is, this camp will buy it and use the crap out of it.

Landscape: For tripod based landscape work at ISO 100, this vignetting is a complete non-issue as you tend to live in f/8 to f/11 for that kind of work. However, if you live in f/8 to f/11, why buy this lens with the 16-35 f/4L IS is just about as sharp, is lighter, and costs half as much? (My guess a lot of enthusiasts are in an 'I want one 16-35 to do everything well' and will be torn between the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L III.)

- A

Precisely! It's not quite as clear cut as the 24-105 upgrade decision (which is a certain no) because that extra stop could come in handy at low-light events. But for the regular outdoor landscape work, the f4 works just fine, AND has IS to boot. It would be nice to just add IS to the 2.8 version and call it a day...I've even contemplated whether it makes sense for me to have both (as with the 24-70) but 16-35 is a range I use far less than 24-70, so not sure I need or want two in that range. I've also had an outside eye on the 11-24 once the price is right, which is complicating things somewhat as I think long-term...

They never make it easy. Such is the life of a Canon shooter...I suppose ultimately the question is how much better optically is the 16-35 2.8 at f8 and will I see a clear improvement in corner performance at 16mm (the weak point of the f4 version IMO)?

 

[NancyP]

I am still using 14mm, 21mm, 35mm primes for astro, and currently for all landscape..... The use I could get from a 16-35 zoom would be as a general purpose landscape lens, carry one instead of three.

 

[ahsanford]

I am still using 14mm, 21mm, 35mm primes for astro, and currently for all landscape..... The use I could get from a 16-35 zoom would be as a general purpose landscape lens, carry one instead of three.

Unless you are shooting astro, I personally don't know* why people go with primes for landscapes:

• You are going to stop them down anyway, so why bring f/1.4, f/2 or f/2.8 lenses?
• Why bring three lenses instead of one?
• Why bring (potentially, depending on the lens) three sets of filters, hoods, or step-down rings?
• Why change out your lens while out in the elements?
• Why move your feet when you can zoom? (Some vistas don't allow you to move your feet much!)

(*Please understand that's not a dig so much as my not understanding.)

I get that primes can be a shade sharper, but at f/8, the differences melt away and the simplicity of the zoom is wonderful for the reasons above.

- A

 

[LordofTackle]

They never make it easy. Such is the life of a Canon shooter...I suppose ultimately the question is how much better optically is the 16-35 2.8 at f8 and will I see a clear improvement in corner performance at 16mm (the weak point of the f4 version IMO)?

I just did some test shoots against my mark II.

at f/2.8 the III just crushes the II, both in the center and especially in the corners.
at f/8 the III is still ahead, at least in the corners, but less clearly so.

I cannot compare to the f/4 since I don't have it

Will post some pictures later if I find the time.

 

[Alex_M]

here is the comparison with F4 IS Lens.

Centre and Mid frame IQ at 16mm and F8 for both lenses is virtually identical. Extreme corner sharpness is a tiny bit better with Mark III lens. CA are noticeably better with Mark III lens.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=949&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

They never make it easy. Such is the life of a Canon shooter...I suppose ultimately the question is how much better optically is the 16-35 2.8 at f8 and will I see a clear improvement in corner performance at 16mm (the weak point of the f4 version IMO)?

I just did some test shoots against my mark II.

at f/2.8 the III just crushes the II, both in the center and especially in the corners.
at f/8 the III is still ahead, at least in the corners, but less clearly so.

I cannot compare to the f/4 since I don't have it

Will post some pictures later if I find the time.

 

[ahsanford]

Yeah, the resolution of this new offering is stellar from every source that's looked at it.

I think that if you are in the market for a 16-35 (and the cost of the f/2.8L III doesn't scare you away), it's a simple purchasing flowchart:

1) Do you dabble in many forms of UWA shooting and want the one UWA zoom to rule them all? Are you an enthusiast that isn't sure what kind of photos you'll take next year and want to future-proof this decision for any potential need?

--> Yes --> Too bad. That lens does not exist. You probably need more than one lens --> Run steps 2-5 for each of your photographic needs and hope two of them land on the same lens.

--> No --> Keep reading

2) Are you buying this lens just to shoot astro with it?

--> Yes --> Get the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC --> STOP

--> No --> Keep reading

3) Do you need f/2.8?

--> Yes --> Keep reading

--> No --> Get the 16-35 f/4L IS --> STOP

4) Can you live with 4+ stops of vignetting at f/2.8 on a wider end of the FL range?

--> Yes --> Get the 16-35 f/2.8L III --> STOP

--> No --> Keep reading

5) Must you be able to conveniently front filter it on the filter threads?

--> Yes --> You are stuck with the old 16-35 f/2.8L II --> STOP

--> No --> Get the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC (but know that you need something like this or something like this to filter that one!) --> STOP

I won't add the 'do you shoot video' wrinkle to this as I don't personally shoot video, but one would think it's down to the Tamron or the f/4L IS based on your aperture and filtering needs.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

Yeah, the resolution of this new offering is stellar from every source that's looked at it.

I think that if you are in the market for a 16-35 (and the cost of the f/2.8L III doesn't scare you away), it's a simple purchasing flowchart:

1) Do you dabble in many forms of UWA shooting and want the one UWA zoom to rule them all? Are you an enthusiast that isn't sure what kind of photos you'll take next year and want to future-proof this decision for any potential need?

--> Yes --> Too bad. That lens does not exist. You probably need more than one lens --> Run steps 2-5 for each of your photographic needs and hope two of them land on the same lens.

--> No --> Keep reading

2) Are you buying this lens just to shoot astro with it?

--> Yes --> Get the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC --> STOP

--> No --> Keep reading

3) Do you need f/2.8?

--> Yes --> Keep reading

--> No --> Get the 16-35 f/4L IS --> STOP

4) Can you live with 4+ stops of vignetting at f/2.8 on a wider end of the FL range?

--> Yes --> Get the 16-35 f/2.8L III --> STOP

--> No --> Keep reading

5) Must you be able to conveniently front filter it on the filter threads?

--> Yes --> You are stuck with the old 16-35 f/2.8L II --> STOP

--> No --> Get the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC (but know that you need something like this or something like this to filter that one!) --> STOP

I won't add the 'do you shoot video' wrinkle to this as I don't personally shoot video, but one would think it's down to the Tamron or the f/4L IS based on your aperture and filtering needs.

- A

: : :

 

[ahsanford]

: : :

Yeah, I'm process driven. Sorry.

I just think that unlike other zooms (70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 24-70 f/2.8L II) Canon has given us a clear as day 'top dog' lens that says yes to every need -- if you don't mind the cost and weight.

But here, in UWA Zoomville, it's a messier proposition. You need to wade into it with a little forethought before you end up needing to sell the pricey ultrasharp lens you bought that (say) doesn't fare well at dark events / astro / concerts / etc. after a 4 stop push.

- A