So does the 16-35 f/2.8L III have a vignetting problem or not?

[BeenThere]

A lot of wide angle lenses have a heavy vignette, but here's the reasons I made a big deal out of it:

1) I was surprised to see that using Canon's own profile correction in DPP (the lens wasn't supported yet by Adobe when I reviewed it) resulted in visible noise being created along the edges...and that was on the 5D Mark IV, which has the best shadow lift of any Canon body. This was also at ISO 100.

2) Canon really priced this lens high. When a lens is expensive it means that I will personally be more demanding in my expectations than of, say, a $125 50mm f/1.8 STM. The 35L II was also priced really high, but when I got through reviewing it I couldn't really gainsay it. The lens delivered (and incidentally I'm expecting a delivery of my own copy any day now). I wasn't quite as wowed by the 16-35L III, and when it comes in at double+ the cost of the already good 16-35 f/4L IS or Tamron 15-30 VC, well...

I don't think this is all that people should fixate on, as it may not really be a big deal in your real world shooting, but it is a real optical drawback. It's a great a lens in so many ways, but that price...uggg!

Dustin,
Great reviews. Don't get discouraged by the nattering nabobs of negativity.

 

[tron]

I was thinking about consolidating my 16-35 f/4L IS (landscapes) and 14 2.8 II (astro) into this lens.

These four trustworthy reviewers helped a lot. I was disappointed with the news but it's much better to be disappointed before than after buying it ;D ;D ;D

 

[BeenThere]

I was thinking about consolidating my 16-35 f/4L IS (landscapes) and 14 2.8 II (astro) into this lens.

These four trustworthy reviewers helped a lot. I was disappointed with the news but it's much better to be disappointed before than after buying it ;D ;D ;D

A more worthy consolidation IMHO would be the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8. Close enough FL coverage and good for Astro.
Also see the Samyang f/2.4 (another topic just posted in reviews)

 

[DaveGershon]

I picked up this lens a couple of weeks ago. I shoot sports and do live at 2.8. Uses it a bit for wide angle indoor basketball shots on my 1Dxmk2. Colors are great. I saw the vignetting at 16mm and f2.8, but it gave a nice look to the shot. I do agree the price is steep on this lens. But overall I am happy with it.

 

[ahsanford]

I picked up this lens a couple of weeks ago. I shoot sports and do live at 2.8. Uses it a bit for wide angle indoor basketball shots on my 1Dxmk2. Colors are great. I saw the vignetting at 16mm and f2.8, but it gave a nice look to the shot. I do agree the price is steep on this lens. But overall I am happy with it.

Right. I happen to love vignetting for certain types of shots. But much like cilantro or nuts in cookies, some people can't stand it at all and it must be purged.

I'm sincerely curious to see the anti-vignetting crowd's satisfaction level with their shots after 4+ stop corrected corners at f/2.8. They might be fine with it.

- A

 

[tron]

A lot of wide angle lenses have a heavy vignette, but here's the reasons I made a big deal out of it:

1) I was surprised to see that using Canon's own profile correction in DPP (the lens wasn't supported yet by Adobe when I reviewed it) resulted in visible noise being created along the edges...and that was on the 5D Mark IV, which has the best shadow lift of any Canon body. This was also at ISO 100.

2) Canon really priced this lens high. When a lens is expensive it means that I will personally be more demanding in my expectations than of, say, a $125 50mm f/1.8 STM. The 35L II was also priced really high, but when I got through reviewing it I couldn't really gainsay it. The lens delivered (and incidentally I'm expecting a delivery of my own copy any day now). I wasn't quite as wowed by the 16-35L III, and when it comes in at double+ the cost of the already good 16-35 f/4L IS or Tamron 15-30 VC, well...

I don't think this is all that people should fixate on, as it may not really be a big deal in your real world shooting, but it is a real optical drawback. It's a great a lens in so many ways, but that price...uggg!

Thank you for a down to earth review. It's good to have warning in advance.

 

[tron]

I picked up this lens a couple of weeks ago. I shoot sports and do live at 2.8. Uses it a bit for wide angle indoor basketball shots on my 1Dxmk2. Colors are great. I saw the vignetting at 16mm and f2.8, but it gave a nice look to the shot. I do agree the price is steep on this lens. But overall I am happy with it.

Right. I happen to love vignetting for certain types of shots. But much like cilantro or nuts in cookies, some people can't stand it at all and it must be purged.

I'm sincerely curious to see the anti-vignetting crowd's satisfaction level with their shots after 4+ stop corrected corners at f/2.8. They might be fine with it.

- A

In landscapes there is not much chance that someone will shoot at f/2.8 so this is no issue. Or in cases where f/2.8 is used but with a low iso like 100. However, in many low light situations someone may probably crank up the iso. Adding 4 stops to an already high iso is an issue.
For example I shoot many landscape astro photos at iso 10000. Can you imagine correcting the corners?

Full disclosure: My 14 2.8 II has some vignetting but far from it (about 2 stops less than the new 16-35). Also I half-correct in post leaving about 1 to 1.5 stop vignette. But still a great difference than 16-35 III

 

[ahsanford]

I'm sincerely curious to see the anti-vignetting crowd's satisfaction level with their shots after 4+ stop corrected corners at f/2.8. They might be fine with it. :

- A

In landscapes there is not much chance that someone will shoot at f/2.8 so this is no issue. Or in cases where f/2.8 is used but with a low iso like 100. However, in many low light situations someone may probably crank up the iso. Adding 4 stops to an already high iso is an issue.
For example I shoot many landscape astro photos at iso 10000. Can you imagine correcting the corners?

Full disclosure: My 14 2.8 II has some vignetting but far from it (about 2 stops less than the new 16-35). Also I half-correct in post leaving about 1 to 1.5 stop vignette. But still a great difference than 16-35 III

In my quote above, I've added the emoji to perhaps better convey my tone. (I kind of knew the answer already.)

Regarding the 16mm f/2.8 vignetting:

Landscapers --> won't care

Outdoor/daylight sports, events, reportage --> won't care

Indoor sports, events reportage --> probably will be unhappy (esp. less well lit venues, gymnasium sports -- hoops, volleyball, etc.)

Astro --> they've already moved on; pushing an ISO 10000 shot 4+ stops is brutal

The main group (sports/reportage/events) is the one with the tough decision to make. If their assignments/events have good light or if 16mm f/2.8 doesn't come up that often (kind of hard to see that as that's kind of why you buy this lens), they should buy the 16-35 f/2.8L III and enjoy such a sharp instrument. For the indoor / poor light folks, I think that's a tough call.

- A