LordofTackle said:Larsskv said:Another thing I am looking for is the difference in overall clarity and contrast. The 24-70 f2.8LII has a pop to it's images, that the 24-70 f4 L IS lacks. If it is a comparable difference between the 16-35 f4L IS and the f2.8 LIII, I would be persuaded and save up the money for an upgrade. Any insights on this from anyone who has compared these lenses head to head will be appreciated!TWI by Dustin Abbott said:Eldar said:Another good review Dustin. You debate my exact concerns with this lens. I had it on my shopping list, but that heavy vignetting is a turnoff, combined with the outrageous price tag (US price is cheap compared to what it cost over here). I sold my 16-35 f4L IS, because I was confident this would be the lens, but now I regret it. I also use the 11-24, but I hate the dinner plate filter size (and the weight, when travelling/hiking). Maybe I´ll just get another 16-35 f4L IS ...
Yes - when I saw the MTF for the lens I was sure that I would ready to sell the Tamron and get the 16-35L III. And after using it for a month or so I do think it is the better lens in an absolute sense, but not enough to justify such a huge price increase.
Another great review, thank you for that Dustin. Also that you comment a bit more on the vignette than other sources
I'm really torn right now whether to go for the 2.8 III or the 4 IS. IS is not as important to me, since I don't do video and I'm used to not having IS from the II and the 24-70/2.8. I also really like the ability to have 2.8 when needed.
OTOH, as Eldar said, the high price (here in Germany MRSP is 2625€!! close to 3000$) is a real turnoff, and so is the huge vignette. Choices choices....
But regarding the price, that already seem to regulate itself, since several shops decreased the price for new III already by 300€, which is pretty telling I guess, since the lens has only been available for 2-3 weeks here. (maybe Canon got to little preorders/early adopters for that price?).
What I would like to ask: As Larsskv pointed out, the 24-70/2.8 has a certain pop, a kind of special feeling, to its images, which I also really like. Where does the new 16-35 III stand in that regard? Especially compared to the f/4 version.
Regarding that 24-70 II pop, it is amazing to me. I resisted the version II for a long time since my version I worked so well. Now I can't believe I waited so long. The 70-200 II doesn't have it. The 35mm II does. The pop is certainly due to the newest coatings. I would expect this new 16-35 version to have the coatings that will produce what you're referring to.