Ricku said:
+1
AND if it has lower distortions, especially at the wide end. Till then, Tokina 16-28 rulez.
Upvote
0
Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?
- Thread starter Radiating
- Start date
- Status
+1
AND if it has lower distortions, especially at the wide end. Till then, Tokina 16-28 rulez.
Started to dig through some of the older 16-35II shots for a different thread and I have to say I am happy with its overall performance. Lens designs to increase UWA zoom performance is an uphill battle with diminishing paybacks for the amount of design tricks needed, not to mention the increase in price.
I am ok for now.
I am ok for now.
Upvote
0
I decided to jump ship...I am planning on selling my Canon 16-35mm II and buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 to compliment my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE...and I am saving to purchase a Zeiss 15mm...I also have the new 24-70mm II. So once I implement my plan I wii have most basis covered in the WA dept.Canon 14-24 said:
Upvote
0
infared said:
I love some of the zeiss glass...but the manual focus is enough of a deal breaker. Will miss too many before I can do it well, and my eyes are simply not that good even given endless time to focus. I would like their 15mm though...leave it at hyperfocal range and keep shooting.
Upvote
0
I love some of the zeiss glass...but the manual focus is enough of a deal breaker. Will miss too many before I can do it well, and my eyes are simply not that good even given endless time to focus. I would like their 15mm though...leave it at hyperfocal range and keep shooting.
My eyes are terrible too...I zone focus the 21mm! LOL! Actually I do a lot of set-up work with a tripod...so it does not matter that much...but I still have the 16-35mm II in case I need it at this point.... the thing is, once you shoot with the Zeiss you do not want to step down to the Canon wide.
I would prefer to see a new 16-35mm III ultra-sharp zoom, (compared to a 14-24)..but Canon has made this lens twice (with modest improvement the second time out), so I do not have a lot of confidence that they can get this really "right"...Perhaps since they are rumored to be making that big megapixel camera, the designers are really under a lot of pressure to make the lens we need this time...and if they do it will cost as much as the Zeiss 15mm, no doubt!...but I would prefer the 16-35mm range.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
candyman said:
I think there is room in the market for both, a 12/14-24 f2.8 and a 16-35III 2.8.
The first lens will certainly have a bulbous front element and therefore be a pain with filters, which make lanscape work a pain the back side. Polarisers and NDs are pretty much precluded unless the filter sizes become huge and therefore unmanagable in the field.
The 16-35 is a compromise lens, it does a lot well but not spectacularly well. It's very wide, but these days there is wider. It's not too corrected but just enough so that post prod correction is effective. It's a useful range and quite sharp....but it could be sharper. Although it's sharp enough for most applications, there will always be some sharpess monkey out there who claims it's not sharp enough. It takes filters very very well and it's easily the most versatile wide lens. Unfortunatly it flares and ghosts quite a bit and could do with an improvement. It's weather sealed and it's easy to wipe water off the front element (or front filter), where as one rain drop on the front of a TS-e 17 is hard to remove and is massive on the final image.
If the 16-35 front element gets damaged (and I've had mine replaced) then it's expensive...but not as expensive or vaulrable as a big front bulging element.
For regular pro work, the 16-35IIL is currently the best choice. It's hardy, versatile and sharp enough. I think a 12/14-24 is more of a fan boy dream...usefull for shooting charts and not so usefull in the real pro use arena. Imagine taking a 12/14-24 to a war zone? Hell, even Cornwall UK on a windy rainy day would render this lens useless.
Upvote
0
Radiating said:
That patent is by Nikon, I don't see Canon making a lens based on it.
Personally, I prefer a Canon EF 14-24mm as good as Nikon's. If Canon makes a 16-35mm with sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, image stabilization, and low vignette, I'll be happy to buy that one instead.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Ellen Schmidtee said:
Well, most of the pro photographers I know who are on the Nikon format don't like using the 14-24mm lens. It's a bit too wide, doesn't do filters in a conveinient way, it's big and heavy and while it's wide open performance is astounding...stopped down (landscapes or DOF) it's no better than older the 17-35mm. There's quite a few for sale S/H and that tends to say a bit about it.
I personally belive that a single wide lens, regardless how good it is, will never enough to cover every eventuality. I have used my 16-35IIL and Siggi 12-24mm lens for a very long time and I've only just replaced the Siggi 12-24 for a TS-e 17L. But my main "goto" wide lens is my 16-35IIL
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
raptor3x said:
I fail to see any real world benefit in having an Image Stabiliser on a wide angle zoom lens.
The current 17-40 f4 L is a widely regarded lens, but I can't see how added IS to it will make it any better?
Upvote
0
raptor3x said:
In typical landscape settings 16-35II requires very high shutter speeds even when stopped down...sometimes requiring ND ... what would an IS offer in real terms?
If you are into night time landscape, that is mostly done on tripods, and they generally suggest you turn off IS... so I dont' see the point. It is very much a fanboy dream.
Upvote
0
Going from version I to version II, Canon did make some progress...the fact it is not that stricking a progress is more telling of how hard it is to design UWA zooms than it is of Canon's unwillingness to make it better.
For the same reason, I feel Canon will only get even fewer paybacks with a version III should they ever attempt it. Where they did make progress is with corner and border sharpness and flare control...the original version I was worse. But these are only minimally noticable.
As someone said earlier, the 16-35 II is not super sharp or super perfect...but it is really a well balanced performer for its range for real world uses.
Here is a shot at 16mm straight into the setting sun at f/11 when I was looking for flare. No filters or anything. I am including the top border crop as well...not sure what CR uploading does but it is sharp in the originals.
For the same reason, I feel Canon will only get even fewer paybacks with a version III should they ever attempt it. Where they did make progress is with corner and border sharpness and flare control...the original version I was worse. But these are only minimally noticable.
As someone said earlier, the 16-35 II is not super sharp or super perfect...but it is really a well balanced performer for its range for real world uses.
Here is a shot at 16mm straight into the setting sun at f/11 when I was looking for flare. No filters or anything. I am including the top border crop as well...not sure what CR uploading does but it is sharp in the originals.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I'd actually really prefer the 16-35 being improved. I wouldn't really like such a bulbous front element that would be on a 14-24, and I'd rather an 82mm filter thread staying on a newer 16-35 so I can just share filters with my 24-70 II
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
