EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

[jeffa4444]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

.............

1. Lens filters are becoming very passé. They are a relic from the film era. Besides a number of die-hard holdouts in the UK, most of the world has moved away from filters. New sensors and editing techniques have mostly eliminated their necessity. They are more of a fun-to-have item these days for tinkering and special FX.

2. The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture, great clarity, wide AOV, virtually non-existent vignetting, durability, etc - all make for an incredibly versatile lens. To imply that the 14-24 is some sort of crippled and idiotic design shows a complete lack of understanding of the current landscape market. The lack of filtering options does not matter at all really. The vast majority of the world's top landscape photographers are using this lens. I would also be using this lens, but I decided to go with the smaller Sigma 8-16 equivalent on an APS-C body. For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree. ............

1. Until somebody comes up with a post process that comes close to emulating reflection control a CPL gives you filter solutions will be popular. Same with heavy ND filters to give much longer exposures.

2. The Nikon 14-24 was king of the hill for years because nobody else tried to take the hill. The 11-24 pisses all over the 14-24 and shows it to be the comparatively modest performer it always has been. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king......

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 11-24 is an incredible lens with outstanding image quality. No argument there. Although it is f4 and extremely heavy, which doesn't lend well to versatility. 14mm is already pushing what is looking good for landscapes. I have seen very few 11mm shots that look good in 3:2 ratio. Would work well for cropping to 3:1 or so though.

I am not here to convince you guys you need to change the way you take landscape shots, as the process is more fun than the results. Use whatever makes you have fun. I am just here to give a little direction to those who feel the landscape market hasn't changed drastically in the last 4 years. The professional landscape photographers here in the Pacific Northwest USA have been on the forefront of modern landscape imaging techniques for a few years now. I see the rest of the world following suit as the years go by.

Charlie Waite
Ross Hoddinott
Adam Burton
Vincent Favre
Simon Beedle
Patrick Smith
Helen Dixon
Wesley Picotte
Tony Prower
Joe Cornish

The list could go on & on. Guess they must all be getting it wrong using filters!

 

[PhotographyFirst]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

OK, I get that this is a breading ground for people who like to argue for the sake of arguing, but geez. At least argue things that are actually being discussed.

Landscape photography = architectural photography
Not needing filters = People took nice photos with filters before so you are wrong
The polarizing effect can be done on some water surfaces without a filter = everything in the universe can be done without a polarizing filter.
The last 4 years = the last 100 years

So now is the time to reply to this post that toast is better buttered side down, and not better butter side up. I am clearly wrong to think toast can be buttered side up.

 

[Loswr]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture...

Without any doubt in your mind, perhaps. What's your evidence for that? You and a few of your buddies use one? Gee, that's convincing. I'd bet a lot more Canon 17-40L lenses have been and are currently being sold that Nikon 14-24G lenses. One bit of evidence for that is that the Canon 17-40 is #109 on Amazon's best selling lenses list, while the Nikon 14-24 is #186 (the Nikon 16-35/4 VR beats the 14-24, too). Another bit of evidence is simple logic – cheaper lenses sell better. So much for 'without any doubt'. :

Do you find f/2.8 gets a a lot of use in landscape photography?

For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree.

Yes, the D800 changed things. For example, with its high resolution sensor, it showed quite clearly that the 14-24G was indeed just barely a decent UWA landscape lens, for all that it was Nikon's best one. When I looked at the corners of the full resolution sample image with the combo that Nikon put up on their website, my first thought was 'wow that's mushy…how did they put a Canon 17-40Lon a Nikon body?'

 

[scyrene]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

What has happened to photography in general is that with the advent of Digital SLR almost everything has been photographed again and again. That's why we get drones, "extreme" lenses, etc.: to get a different angle of the same old stuff. Personally speaking I don't fall for it nor the hype surrounding it.

Nevertheless, thanks for sharing what a pro goes though to get that "different" shot.

It's not so much a phenomenon intrinsic to digital photography. If everything seems to have been photographed 'again and again', it's due to a combination of more of everything - more cameras, more people, more travel - and the ease and speed of sharing pictures and information about how and where to take them.

But then, if you looked at large numbers of photographs in the past, you'd likely have the same impression - because at its heart, it's down to people seeing the world in similar ways, being drawn to the same things.

One thing the digital revolution has brought us is new ways of processing and combining images, which for me is where most of the innovation lies (panorama stitching, focus stacking, stacking for noise reduction and sharpness, HDR, Brenizer, etc).

A man who is tired of photographs is tired of life...

 

[scyrene]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Here is an example:

A really strong image, and I'd never have imagined it was two exposures blended (a good example of what I mention above, how digital manipulation can allow us to create new types of image). Thanks for sharing!

 

[scyrene]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Depends on what looks natural to you. I wear polarizing sunglasses exclusively in summer so to me deep rich blue skies are natural and normal. However at least you get why putting a CPL on a UWA lens can be bad

Heh, you must live somewhere nice! I could wear whatever glasses I wanted, the summer skies would still be grey :-\

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

.............

1. Lens filters are becoming very passé. They are a relic from the film era. Besides a number of die-hard holdouts in the UK, most of the world has moved away from filters. New sensors and editing techniques have mostly eliminated their necessity. They are more of a fun-to-have item these days for tinkering and special FX.

2. The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture, great clarity, wide AOV, virtually non-existent vignetting, durability, etc - all make for an incredibly versatile lens. To imply that the 14-24 is some sort of crippled and idiotic design shows a complete lack of understanding of the current landscape market. The lack of filtering options does not matter at all really. The vast majority of the world's top landscape photographers are using this lens. I would also be using this lens, but I decided to go with the smaller Sigma 8-16 equivalent on an APS-C body. For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree. ............

1. Until somebody comes up with a post process that comes close to emulating reflection control a CPL gives you filter solutions will be popular. Same with heavy ND filters to give much longer exposures.

2. The Nikon 14-24 was king of the hill for years because nobody else tried to take the hill. The 11-24 pisses all over the 14-24 and shows it to be the comparatively modest performer it always has been. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king......

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 11-24 is an incredible lens with outstanding image quality. No argument there. Although it is f4 and extremely heavy, which doesn't lend well to versatility. 14mm is already pushing what is looking good for landscapes. I have seen very few 11mm shots that look good in 3:2 ratio. Would work well for cropping to 3:1 or so though.

I am not here to convince you guys you need to change the way you take landscape shots, as the process is more fun than the results. Use whatever makes you have fun. I am just here to give a little direction to those who feel the landscape market hasn't changed drastically in the last 4 years. The professional landscape photographers here in the Pacific Northwest USA have been on the forefront of modern landscape imaging techniques for a few years now. I see the rest of the world following suit as the years go by.

Charlie Waite
Ross Hoddinott
Adam Burton
Vincent Favre
Simon Beedle
Patrick Smith
Helen Dixon
Wesley Picotte
Tony Prower
Joe Cornish

The list could go on & on. Guess they must all be getting it wrong using filters!

I would add Guy Edwardes to that list, mainly because he's a 35mm / DSLR photographer rather than a medium or large format photographer. It makes his work far more applicable to me. Yes, he uses filters where necessary.

 

[gpp]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

I've been using the 24-105mm F/4 L IS as a video lens for ages and it's just a workhorse of a lens. This lens has been a de-facto standard for video shooters on the 5D series era and on the C100/C300 as an all rounder ''doc'' lens.

Mine lived on my 5DII and 60D (great range for both sensor sizes from wide to tele) and the lens alone carried my video production company, it's specifically ultimately exceptional in video Image Stabilisation unlike any other Canon lens, but sadly one time the tripod fell off and the hit was right to the extended lens barrel. It was stuck/fixed, seemed like something easy to fix, but I found out it was officially dead and repair exceeds the cost of a new one. So it lives now as room decoration.

Since I moved from Full Frame video and lost the 24-105mm. I found an alternative in the absolutely brilliant Canon 18-135mm IS. It's only APS-C (so only 60D, C100, C300, not 5D, which I sold and it got outdated in the video world).

And I found that little gem to be better in every single way including image quality except for build quality/feel and constant f/4 aperture.

But the 24-105mm wasn't ACTUALLY a constant aperture lens, it got darker whilst zooming during video, not much different from the variable 18-135mm oddly. So that was a strange downside with the lens, I thought I was the only one with a bad copy but it turns out this was documented and reported by all video shooters.

The 18-135mm has a larger range and wider for APS-C (which is the standard for video/cinema), less distortion at 24mm, similar/identical sharpness, same overall image, slightly better image stabilisation, silent AF and IS and Iris, and smaller/lighter weight and cost.

The 24-105mm has Full frame coverage shall you need it, constant f/4, and L series build quality, for a very low price point.

I'd ditch the 18-135mm and get this new lens if it has a few things. Most importantly, image quality. The 24-105mm and 18-135mm are great lenses and do very good 2mp 1080p video, but when you pop on a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and look at the image both set at f/4, it just hits you how much POP and cleaner colour and 3d dimension feel these primes have. This aesthetic is in the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS and 24-70mm F/2.8. One might think that at at 1080p HD the resolution increase in the lens wouldn't show up but it does, significantly.

So for me it needs to be:

1- Sharper. Higher resolution. Just get more of that POP it lacks compared to primes and other L glass.
2- Less Distortion at wide shots. It's hideous. In photography you can correct it but in video, not so much.
3- Doesn't ramp aperture/transmission while zooming from 24mm to 105mm like a normal constant should.

Thank you for this write up as it helps us video neophytes.

I recommend that you take what he posts with a very large grain of salt. Ebrahim never owned 24-105mm F/4 L IS, 18-135mm IS, 5D II, 60D...
Links: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20260-how-i-got-scammed-through-one-of-this-sites-highest-rated-accounts/
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20396-cannot-post-ebrahim-saadawi/?page=1
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20475-life-vs-film/?page=2

ES's current gear: https://www.dpreview.com/members/9734214696/gearlist

 

[sinphoto]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

I use 16-35/2.8II a lot, this is my all time favorite lens 8), i use it exclusively for my nightscape pictures, on 5d/5dii resolution is enough at any aperture for 20*30cm picture and sometimes for 60*90cm spread, i am really interested in wide open porformance of the 16-35/2.8L III, could anyone send couple wide open (focused on infinity) raw files to my email?

My email: [email protected]

Also please check my instagram: https://www.instagram.com/andriy_sinchuk/