mackguyver said:
Ruined said:
One thing I like about this lens is it requires minimal post processing to deliver an image without distracting artifacts. You can't say that about most Canon UWA lenses.
One thing I don't like as much is the sunstars, at least from what I've seen thus far. The rays look thick and not as commanding as the sunstars of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. Of course that lens requires some significant post work to remove CA, add sharpening and is not as sharp in the corners at wider apertures. The best one I've seen of the 16-35 f/4 IS thus far is here (16-35 f/4 IS on left, 16-35 f/2.8L II on right):
http://www.alexnail.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/coatings.jpg
I have to say, there have been times that the 16-35 f/2.8L II has given me sunstars that were unexpectedly long and in ways intruded into the rest of the picture - but some of those shots actually turned out more interesting as a result of the impressive yet not purposeful sunstar.
So, Canon Rumors members... Who can impress me with some bombastic sunstars from this lens?
Ruined, the first post in this thread shows a sunstar comparison between this lens and the TS-E 17 f/4...but the links were broken until just now.
Also, I agree with the post processing - if you look at the last shot I posted, it would have been a CA nightmare with the 16-35 f/2.8 or 17-40, but with this lens, there was hardly any CA to remove. The big deal with that is that I exposed to the right to get the highlights, so the shadows had to be punched up quite a bit. With other lenses, I would get some nasty artifacts around the highlight edges from the
removed CA.
The vignetting and distortion are a bit higher than I'd like at 16mm, but DxO & ACR handle things quite well.
Overall, I'm very pleased with the lens, though I have yet to make much use of the IS.
Hey mack,
Links still appear broken to me except one sunstar shot (#8520). Not sure if that is the 16-35 or not - thx.
FYI I did end up selling my 16-35mm f/2.8L II for one reason - I went through all of my work and found that if I needed the light of f/2.8, I recently have been using the 24L I got not too long ago as it can do f/1.4. While f/2.8 was still very useful at 35mm for subject isolation, now that I have the 24L I would generally use the 24L + 50L or 70-200 before using the 16-35.
I am having trouble deciding what will be best for my photography next; looking at 8-15mm f/4L, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 85mm f/1.2L, and EOS 7D2. All of these things will help in some way or another, but I am having difficulty deciding what will give best bang for buck.
-(good chance) 8-15mm f/4L: I don't have a fisheye lens, and while it would not be a frequent lens to use I would like to have the capability for one or two unique shots during an event. I have seen some very effective church shots using fisheye 15mm. While the 8mm circular fisheye look can be gimmicky, I think it would also be something I'd like to use at times.
-(probably not) 16-35mm f/4L IS: I no longer have any lens below 24mm, and while I rarely dip below 24mm again I would like to have some coverage for landscape shots. But, since this is not something I would use much for event photography it is not a priority, and I could always experiment with the 8-15mm and see what 2015 brings in UWA.
-(maybe) 85mm f/1.2L II: Always on my want list, I am still not 100% sold on this lens. I am sold on the output, but the extending focusing barrel that requires power, slow autofocus, lack of sealing, precarious rear element - every time I get close to buying I can picture myself grabbing my 50L or 70-200L instead simply because they seem to be less fragile. I do a lot of indoors events but also outdoors events (where there is dirt, fumes, etc) & portraiture, and the 85L f/1.2L II really does not look like it is designed for usage in the elements (not even talking rain, just wind/dust/dirt, bumps, bangs etc). I am finding myself wishing Canon's next version of this lens is a complete redesign similar to what they did with the 50mm f/1.0L > 50mm f/1.2L - I realize the 85L II is a specialty lens but I think if they tweaked it to be a little more practical (maybe f/1.4) while still retaining the same portrait 'look' I'd get a whole lot more use out of it.
-(very good chance) EOS 7D2: For sports and reach-limited scenarios. Currently I have two EOS 6D cameras and the longest my lenses get is 200mm (sometimes shoot motorsports so not sure I'd want to give up f/2.8 for focus precision), so an EOS 7D2 would give two benefits - better autofocus for sports and improvements for reach limited scenarios which I find myself in sometimes. It is also nice when using primes to have the crop factor option. Main concern, or perhaps inevitability, is that it will be overpriced at launch and will have to wait until 2015 to get a good price. Of course, if Canon announces 5D4 and it has interchangeable focus screens, that will be more of a priority.