mackguyver said:
Kinda regret selling my 2.8 II now, particularly because the distortion looks worse, and it's not a lot sharper. I am looking forward to the smaller hood and I always have my TS-E 17 & 24s for architectural stuff. I'm also curious to see what IS does for me in practice. For travel, I think it will be really nice. I'll have it on Monday...tomscott said:
mackguyver said:
I also noticed the hood goes on smoother if you grip it by the short fins instead of the long fins, likely as the leverage of the latter deform the hood slightly when twisting.
I'm sure you're right, and perhaps I had my hopes up a little too high. It is just one copy and one review, so we'll what others say, and perhaps some of the less measurable qualities will be impressive as well. I never shot at f/2.8 so it's not a big deal, but I did take a loss on the sale, my first for a Canon lens, so that stings a bit.Ruined said:mackguyver said:
I'm not sure its really worth regretting, I mean you said you didn't use it at 2.8 anyway and its not like this new lens is worse at landscapes - it is still better, just not as dramatically as the MTFs suggested. On the other hand, the bulk of those improvements are at f4-f8 which is generally just a bit more wide open than most landscapers shoot to max DOF. f/11 seems to be very popular for landscapes and aside from the CA it is almost a tie (the f/4 is ever so slightly sharper in the mid frame). Still, if you didn't use 2.8 you should get some improvements out of this lens. Worse comes to worse you can always return the f/4 lens and buy a used 16-35 II for probably the same price you sold yours, but I am not sure that is the best move - depends on whether you want 2.8. Also, this is my subjective opinion, but I find the 14-pointed sunstars of the 16-35 f/2.8L II more realistic and less distracting than the 18-pointed sunstars of the 16-35 f/4L IS. 18 points of light just looks a bit too busy and almost cartoonish to me.
So, while it may not be the lens that moves heaven and earth as the MTF suggested, for your usage it sounds like it will be an upgrade, albeit a smaller one than expected.
Regarding IS, I have done tests with the 24 IS, 28 IS and 35 IS at slow shutter speeds and was disappointed in the results - compared to say the 70-200 IS II where IS makes a massive difference. Namely, IS on the wide angles did not seem nearly as effective as on tele lenses (less stops of effectiveness) and it was better to just use a tripod for max sharpness at such slow shutters. There were less pictures that were garbage when IS was engaged with super slow shutter, but the "keepers" were not nearly as sharp as they would have been out of a 70-200 with a similar # of stops (or on a tripod) to the extent that I did not find it particularly useful outside of video.
Also keep in mind this is only one review and if you look at the 50L results from the same site you will see they look dreadful. So it is probably worth waiting to see more reviews and real life shots.
If you ever pick up the 16-35 II again there is a trick to storing the hood. Don't flip it in storage position, take it off entirely and place it vertically next to the lens
Ruined said:
mackguyver said:
LetTheRightLensIn said:
mackguyver said:
Alas, I lost money on the f/2.8 II because I bought it at one of its highest prices in years - no rebates or anything at the time. I needed the lens for a shoot when I bought it so technically it paid for itself, but I have sold every other Canon lens for the price I paid or more. Yes I have plenty left over to cover the f/4 IS, but I don't like to lose money, even if it's just in principle vs. reality. A 3 year rental would have cost me how much?Ruined said:mackguyver said:
Well if you never shot at f/2.8 and don't plan to, then I think aside from price you made the right move. I am surprised you took a loss as the 16-35 II appears to be going for ~$1300+ on eBay which is greater than the 16-35 f/4 IS' MSRP. Also, as you know by jumping into the game on day one you automatically pay 10-15% more for the lens than if you waited 6 months, which is simply the early adopter tax. And of course if you trade to camera store you trade profit for convenience.
The only thing I'd say about the 16-35 II for landscape and I've know I've said it before, is that I greatly prefer the 14 point sunstars to the 18 point sunstars in the f/4 IS. Even if I were a landscape shooter it bothers me enough that I might not have purchased the f/4 IS. I know this is totally subjective though and some like the 18 point better than 14 point or don't care either way, but for me it just sticks out and bothers me (similar to angular bokeh balls)
mackguyver said:Alas, I lost money on the f/2.8 II because I bought it at one of its highest prices in years - no rebates or anything at the time. I needed the lens for a shoot when I bought it so technically it paid for itself, but I have sold every other Canon lens for the price I paid or more. Yes I have plenty left over to cover the f/4 IS, but I don't like to lose money, even if it's just in principle vs. reality. A 3 year rental would have cost me how much?
On the sunstars - I have been shooting with the 24-70 f/2.8 II for a while now and don't find the 9-bladed aperture to be an issue even at 70mm. I'm not sure I have a strong preference either way - sometimes the spiky 9-bladed sunstars are a nice effect - like for nightime cityscapes, and sometimes they are odd and distracting, but sometimes the softer 8-bladed sunstars just look odd and smeared. Obviously the aperture makes a big difference, too, so there is some control. And if you think about it, at the 16-35mm focal length, the sun is never going to be very big in the frame so I don't think it will be much of an issue.
Also, regarding Tom's point about astrophotography, the f/2.8 II like all older Canon zooms and most primes has terrible coma in the corners. The 24-70 f/2.8 II does not and it's possible that the f/4 IS won't either. Combine that with the 5DIII or 1DX and the ISO can make up for the aperture, at least in good conditions.
ejenner, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the lens and how it compares to the TS-E 17. I looked at the distortion charts on TDP and the 17mm seems much less distorted, at least in the neutral position. If the f/4 IS is as sharp as the 17mm, I'll be a very happy man
I paid $1589 for my 16-35, so I lost about $300 after fees (it was in mint condition and sold high), which is around the same as a 60 day rental, so I try to look at it that way. I have the 24-70 II, 24L II, and 50L so I can live with the f/4 as well, and I agree that it should be a great travel lens.Random Orbits said:mackguyver said:Alas, I lost money on the f/2.8 II because I bought it at one of its highest prices in years - no rebates or anything at the time. I needed the lens for a shoot when I bought it so technically it paid for itself, but I have sold every other Canon lens for the price I paid or more. Yes I have plenty left over to cover the f/4 IS, but I don't like to lose money, even if it's just in principle vs. reality. A 3 year rental would have cost me how much?
On the sunstars - I have been shooting with the 24-70 f/2.8 II for a while now and don't find the 9-bladed aperture to be an issue even at 70mm. I'm not sure I have a strong preference either way - sometimes the spiky 9-bladed sunstars are a nice effect - like for nightime cityscapes, and sometimes they are odd and distracting, but sometimes the softer 8-bladed sunstars just look odd and smeared. Obviously the aperture makes a big difference, too, so there is some control. And if you think about it, at the 16-35mm focal length, the sun is never going to be very big in the frame so I don't think it will be much of an issue.
Also, regarding Tom's point about astrophotography, the f/2.8 II like all older Canon zooms and most primes has terrible coma in the corners. The 24-70 f/2.8 II does not and it's possible that the f/4 IS won't either. Combine that with the 5DIII or 1DX and the ISO can make up for the aperture, at least in good conditions.
ejenner, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the lens and how it compares to the TS-E 17. I looked at the distortion charts on TDP and the 17mm seems much less distorted, at least in the neutral position. If the f/4 IS is as sharp as the 17mm, I'll be a very happy man
I've lost money on the 3 lenses I've bought and sold: about 200 on the 17-55, about 50 on the 10-22 and about 150 on the 16-35 II. The one that really surprised me was how soft the market the 16-35 II had become. When I bought it, it sold used for 1300, but I got mine for about 1200. I sold it for close to that, but the loss is mainly from fees. The only auctions that I saw go for much more than 1200 were usually scammers with no feedback scores.
The one stop difference compared to the 16-35 II won't matter as much to me or those that have faster primes. With f/1.4 options at 24 and 35, you lose on focal length versatility, but the two stops is more signifcant than the 1 stop difference compared to the 16-35II.
It's true that IS is not as effective at shorter FLs, but I'd still rather have it than not. It helps when the shutter speed gets as slow as 1/2 second, which is handy for travel (i.e. museums, blurring water flow minimally). It looks like it'll be an ideal travel lens. I love the idea of a 16-35 III that is as good if not better optically than the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that is not a option now.
tomscott said:
From ISO 100 to ISO 200 is not much; but for capturing stars as a point, people normally use ISO3200 or ISO6400 already. So losing 1 stop is a big deal. Now you'll have to shoot at ISO12800 which maybe be too much noise to get good image.mustafaakarsu said:
