PhotoZone Review: 16-35 f/2.8L III

[ahsanford]

PZ's read on the 16-35 f/2.8L III:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/992-canon1635f28mk3?start=1

TDP's painful vignetting figure is indeed corroborated here: 4.61 stops at 16mm f/2.8.

- A

 

[Viggo]

Wow, that's pretty bad vignetting! They almost can't call it a 2.8 or even a full frame lens, lol.

I can't remember the 16-35 f4 IS being this bad, but I noticed it was not great...

 

[YuengLinger]

Thanks, ahsanford for posting this. Ugh.

Seems to be a common theme. Aggravating.

Price is a factor, absolutely. When you buy a Yaris, you accept the road noise. When you step up to Lexus, no.

If the numbers are correct, this is a terrible blow for those of us who don't put the subject dead center in every composition at f/2.8. I'm so glad I didn't rush to sell my f/4 to have $$ to put towards this.

Hope the 24-105mm is a better improvement!

 

[Click]

Thanks for posting, ahsanford.


I totally agree with you, YuengLinger.

 

[rfdesigner]

PZ's read on the 16-35 f/2.8L III:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/992-canon1635f28mk3?start=1

TDP's painful vignetting figure is indeed corroborated here: 4.61 stops at 16mm f/2.8.

- A

The old one is only 2.8 stops according the the same source.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1

For those who want the lens as a wide portrait lens, OOF background (& corners) why would they buy the new lens?

 

[DominoDude]

<sarcasm>
Congratulations, Canon, on your first EF-S L-glass!

Must be the first time an EF-S fits the EF mount. Did you have trouble deciding if you wanted to light up the entire image circle for a FF sensor, or did you just decide to categorize it as "vignetting"?
</sarcasm>

 

[ahsanford]

And Dustin Abbott agrees on the vignetting:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31274.0
(link to the full review is there, but I thought I'd send comments about that review to that thread, which Dustin is certainly monitoring and replying to.)

He claims twice the vignetting when shot wide open than the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC, which is right in line with what TDP found.

The question then becomes: who gets punished by 16mm + f/2.8 having so much vignetting? I would presume astro would hate having to boost the exposure so much to correct this, and environmental portraiture folks will likely have to keep folks somewhat central (but at 16mm with faces you'd kind of need to do that anyway).

Events? Would concert or wedding reception shots take a hit from this?

Sports folks should manage, I'd think. I see a 16-35mm f/2.8 commonly used at (American) football games where the coaches shake hands in a mob of people after the final whistle. Also perhaps hoops from the baseline to get the full width of the baseline in view (everyone watching a shot). Full disclosure -- I'm no sports guy, please pipe up if you have thoughts on this.

Non-astro landscapers shouldn't care.

- A

 

[AdamBotond]

That vignetting is hard to digest indeed. Especially with version II having "only" 2,6 EV at 2.8, its hard to justify 4,6 EV vignetting at this price point. Ironically, people were complaining about the lack of sharpness in the edges of version II. Finally, they got sharpness through the entire frame in III, but they got almost twice as much vignetting, making improved edge sharpness look much less attractive.

Granted, by stopping down vignetting will disappear. However, whoever is willing to pay premium for 2.8 , is certainly intending to use it wide open, otherwise F4 IS would be just fine for much less money.

I'm not much into tech details, but was wondering what caused this challenge for Canon as once they had vignetting much better under controll in version II.

 

[Alex_M]

Adam, that's almost 4 times as much vignetting as the difference is nearly 2ev. not sure what Canon engineers were thinking about

That vignetting is hard to digest indeed.... Finally, they got sharpness through the entire frame in III, but they got almost twice as much vignetting, making improved edge sharpness look much less attractive...

 

[hendrik-sg]

This vignetting is a nogo indeed.

This seems to be the easiest way to get good sharpness vaalues, just darken the less sharp outer regions. this lens has worse transmission than the F4 IS verion in the outer regions, then i would better like to have IS (and keep 1/2 the money).

-4EV means, it's a T>5.6 lens at the corners, this should not cost 2k$

 

[Random Orbits]

This vignetting is a nogo indeed.

This seems to be the easiest way to get good sharpness vaalues, just darken the less sharp outer regions. this lens has worse transmission than the F4 IS verion in the outer regions, then i would better like to have IS (and keep 1/2 the money).

-4EV means, it's a T>5.6 lens at the corners, this should not cost 2k$

The vignetting is comparable to less than the 16-35 f/4 IS at comparable apertures. It's probably due to design constraints. Want a well correct lens? Then choose between a filterable design with heavy vignetting or a convex front element (a la the 15-30) that is not filterable and has less vignetting. No one is making you buy it; you have a choice.

 

[Alex_M]

Else, Canon could have designed the lens with filterable but larger, say, 86mm front element. That would certainly improve viignetting levels in extreme corners but increase cost, size and weight of the lens.

This vignetting is a nogo indeed.

This seems to be the easiest way to get good sharpness vaalues, just darken the less sharp outer regions. this lens has worse transmission than the F4 IS verion in the outer regions, then i would better like to have IS (and keep 1/2 the money).

-4EV means, it's a T>5.6 lens at the corners, this should not cost 2k$

The vignetting is comparable to less than the 16-35 f/4 IS at comparable apertures. It's probably due to design constraints. Want a well correct lens? Then choose between a filterable design with heavy vignetting or a convex front element (a la the 15-30) that is not filterable and has less vignetting. No one is making you buy it; you have a choice.

 

[YuengLinger]

This vignetting is a nogo indeed.

This seems to be the easiest way to get good sharpness vaalues, just darken the less sharp outer regions. this lens has worse transmission than the F4 IS verion in the outer regions, then i would better like to have IS (and keep 1/2 the money).

-4EV means, it's a T>5.6 lens at the corners, this should not cost 2k$

The vignetting is comparable to less than the 16-35 f/4 IS at comparable apertures. It's probably due to design constraints. Want a well correct lens? Then choose between a filterable design with heavy vignetting or a convex front element (a la the 15-30) that is not filterable and has less vignetting. No one is making you buy it; you have a choice.

What a revelation! This adds incredible insights to the conversation! Thank you! :

 

[Random Orbits]

This vignetting is a nogo indeed.

This seems to be the easiest way to get good sharpness vaalues, just darken the less sharp outer regions. this lens has worse transmission than the F4 IS verion in the outer regions, then i would better like to have IS (and keep 1/2 the money).

-4EV means, it's a T>5.6 lens at the corners, this should not cost 2k$

The vignetting is comparable to less than the 16-35 f/4 IS at comparable apertures. It's probably due to design constraints. Want a well correct lens? Then choose between a filterable design with heavy vignetting or a convex front element (a la the 15-30) that is not filterable and has less vignetting. No one is making you buy it; you have a choice.

What a revelation! This adds incredible insights to the conversation! Thank you! :

Anytime. Of course, you didn't Dustin to tell you the corners vignetted heavily -- that info was already out (TDP), unless you were thinking that copy-to-copy variation could account for that much difference in vignetting performance. :

 

[YuengLinger]

This vignetting is a nogo indeed.

This seems to be the easiest way to get good sharpness vaalues, just darken the less sharp outer regions. this lens has worse transmission than the F4 IS verion in the outer regions, then i would better like to have IS (and keep 1/2 the money).

-4EV means, it's a T>5.6 lens at the corners, this should not cost 2k$

The vignetting is comparable to less than the 16-35 f/4 IS at comparable apertures. It's probably due to design constraints. Want a well correct lens? Then choose between a filterable design with heavy vignetting or a convex front element (a la the 15-30) that is not filterable and has less vignetting. No one is making you buy it; you have a choice.

What a revelation! This adds incredible insights to the conversation! Thank you! :

Anytime. Of course, you didn't Dustin to tell you the corners vignetted heavily -- that info was already out (TDP), unless you were thinking that copy-to-copy variation could account for that much difference in vignetting performance. :

I take individual reviews, even reputable ones, with a grain of salt, waiting for a consensus to form.

LensRental is great because they work with many units.

Personal example: I just sent an 80D back to the retailer because AI Servo was abysmal. Received a new one and see all the AF functions as very good.

 

[hendrik-sg]

Despite i am a technician with some physical knowledge, i can not judge about the compromises which have really been done, but if it has to be stopped down only one stop (to adjust the brightness of the center to the brightness of the corners) the lens becomes obsolete

I buy fast lenses for their light gathering capabilities and i do not want to have to push the corner by this amount

 

[LordofTackle]

Despite i am a technician with some physical knowledge, i can not judge about the compromises which have really been done, but if it has to be stopped down only one stop (to adjust the brightness of the center to the brightness of the corners) the lens becomes obsolete

I buy fast lenses for their light gathering capabilities and i do not want to have to push the corner by this amount

Well, in that case almost every fast lens ever made is obsolete (by your definition) and you can throw them out of the window

 

[BeenThere]

I'm not a lens designer, but there are always trades to make. Perhaps vignette and edge of frame sharpness is one of those trades. It seems all the wide angles have this issue: either soft edges or a lot of vignette in the corners? A "lot" is a relative term and some makers get better overall results than others. For instance the Tamron 15-30 is a little softer than the new 16-35 Canon (over the whole frame to my eye), yet the vignette of the Tamron is not as bad. Which would you prefer?

 

[ahsanford]

Despite i am a technician with some physical knowledge, i can not judge about the compromises which have really been done, but if it has to be stopped down only one stop (to adjust the brightness of the center to the brightness of the corners) the lens becomes obsolete

I buy fast lenses for their light gathering capabilities and i do not want to have to push the corner by this amount

Well, in that case almost every fast lens ever made is obsolete (by your definition) and you can throw them out of the window

I catch the and appreciate the reality of wide aperture lenses, but can you honestly tell me of a lens that was 'sequeled' by Canon (same FL range, same max aperture) that got this much worse in one metric?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I'm not a lens designer, but there are always trades to make. Perhaps vignette and edge of frame sharpness is one of those trades. It seems all the wide angles have this issue: either soft edges or a lot of vignette in the corners? A "lot" is a relative term and some makers get better overall results than others. For instance the Tamron 15-30 is a little softer than the new 16-35 Canon (over the whole frame to my eye), yet the vignette of the Tamron is not as bad. Which would you prefer?

I am not a lens designer, but surely they could have made other calls with the front element and retained front filterability, correct? I'm not saying the filters would be as readily available or inexpensive, but they could have put in a larger front element, couldn't they?

- A