TDP Image Quality of 16-35 f/2.8L III posted

[ahsanford]

Behold -- Canon continues its killing streak on delivering terrifically sharp UWA zooms:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=19068

I don't see any (daylight) landscapers giving up their 16-35 f/4L IS for this one as wide open sharpness isn't a big priority for them. (I still see the 16-35 f/4L IS selling very well alongside this f/2.8L III.)

But it would appear that between the 11-24, 16-35 f/4 and 16-35 f/2.8, Canon has everything very well covered now.

Astro folks: nothing on coma listed yet. Looks like you'll need to wait for LensTip for that.

- A

 

[NorbR]

Wow
I don't think I've ever seen such sharp corners wide open since lenses started being tested on the 5DsR. And at 16mm no less. Extremely impressing.

And this is giving me some serious GAS. It would not be replacing my f4 (no way I'm letting that one go, too good for travel), so I'd have to live with two 16-35mm ... hmmm ...

 

[LordofTackle]

Wow
I don't think I've ever seen such sharp corners wide open since lenses started being tested on the 5DsR. And at 16mm no less. Extremely impressing.

My reaction exactly!
In the corners, it blows the 16-35/4 out of the water (and that at 2.8)!!
And that settles it: when I finally replace my 16-35/2.8 II (terrible terrible corners) it will be with the MarkIII, not the f/4.

 

[ahsanford]

Wow
I don't think I've ever seen such sharp corners wide open since lenses started being tested on the 5DsR. And at 16mm no less. Extremely impressing.

And this is giving me some serious GAS. It would not be replacing my f4 (no way I'm letting that one go, too good for travel), so I'd have to live with two 16-35mm ... hmmm ...

This is an event / sports lens, so I have zero desire to give up the stellar 16-35 f/4L IS that I used a ton at three National Parks recently. I only shoot wider than 24mm for traditional daylight + golden hour landscape work.

But Canon famously gives astro photographers the choice of two of the following: fast / wide / low coma. Other than the wide end of the 24-70 f/2.8L II, I don't believe Canon's ever been able to hit all three. If this 16-35 f/2.8L III has low coma, it will be snatched up by the astro camp.

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

Wow! Awesome at 16mm, more comparable to the competition at 24mm and 35mm. Surprised how well it did versus the Tamron 15-30 AND it's filterable.

IS on the 16-35 f/4 IS is nice for travel, but when people are in the frame, the option of having a larger aperture is a big advantage. I'll miss the 16-35 f/4 IS but I don't think I can justify having both of them.

 

[AJ]

Holy cow, that's sharp!

 

[StudentOfLight]

This has just moved to the top of my wishlist. I sold my 16-35L II to help fund my 35L II. I will now be selling my 24L II to help fund the 16-35L III if the AF is fast and reliable. I eagerly await the full review.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Wow
I don't think I've ever seen such sharp corners wide open since lenses started being tested on the 5DsR. And at 16mm no less. Extremely impressing.

And this is giving me some serious GAS. It would not be replacing my f4 (no way I'm letting that one go, too good for travel), so I'd have to live with two 16-35mm ... hmmm ...

This is an event / sports lens, so I have zero desire to give up the stellar 16-35 f/4L IS that I used a ton at three National Parks recently. I only shoot wider than 24mm for traditional daylight + golden hour landscape work.

But Canon famously gives astro photographers the choice of two of the following: fast / wide / low coma. Other than the wide end of the 24-70 f/2.8L II, I don't believe Canon's ever been able to hit all three. If this 16-35 f/2.8L III has low coma, it will be snatched up by the astro camp.

- A

Mine just arrived today and so far im pretty stoked about the IQ. As soon as these clouds depart, i will give it some time on star fields to see how it holds up. Im not holding my breath as many wide angle lenses while perfect photographically, dont hold up to the star test.

 

[Larsskv]

GAS just struck me...

 

[ritholtz]

Wow! Awesome at 16mm, more comparable to the competition at 24mm and 35mm. Surprised how well it did versus the Tamron 15-30 AND it's filterable.

IS on the 16-35 f/4 IS is nice for travel, but when people are in the frame, the option of having a larger aperture is a big advantage. I'll miss the 16-35 f/4 IS but I don't think I can justify having both of them.

It looks like even sharper than 24-70mm at 24mm.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Interesting. I field tested it in a controlled environment today and didn't have the same results. I directly compared it to the Tamron 15-30 VC (on a 5D Mark IV body) and wasn't blown away. I don't know that I could rule either the winner, but the much heavier vignette from the Canon might affect the real world corner performance. I expected it be the easy winner at 16mm/15mm, as the Tamron's strength is 20-24mm range. Canon has better flare and chromatic aberration performance. It's going to be hard to make the argument that the Canon is worth twice as much based on resolution, though (at least with the copy I have). Being able use screw in filters is welcome, obviously...

Note that even at f/5.6 I'm having a hard time seeing a real advantage for the Canon near the edges. I was actually a little disappointed by this result; I thought the Canon would best the Tamron handily. I've attached one final comparison at f/8 where I think the textures look a little crisper on the Canon side, but it's still not huge.

 

[ahsanford]

Dustin, thanks for the post! Did you run something similar against the 16-35 f/4L IS?

- A

 

[NorbR]

Thanks for that, Dustin, great to see real life examples !

Hard indeed to differentiate these two lenses, but I guess that's good news, given that the Tamron was optically excellent to begin with. The heavier vignetting is expected from the Canon since it can take filters, that's an inevitable trade-off, I think.

Are you working on a review of this lens? (If so, I'll definitely wait to see it before making any decision.)

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, thanks for the post! Did you run something similar against the 16-35 f/4L IS?

- A

I did. When the 16-35 f/4L and Tamron came out I did a "three-way comparison" series where I directly compared those two lenses + the 16-35L II. The latter was the big loser, obviously, and I found the former two very close with a minute edge to the 16-35 f/4L. There are four videos and/or articles in the series, but here's a link to the video where I compared resolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux_ff8dpZ34

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks for that, Dustin, great to see real life examples !

Hard indeed to differentiate these two lenses, but I guess that's good news, given that the Tamron was optically excellent to begin with. The heavier vignetting is expected from the Canon since it can take filters, that's an inevitable trade-off, I think.

Are you working on a review of this lens? (If so, I'll definitely wait to see it before making any decision.)

I'm definitely in the review process. I think it is probably the better lens when compared to the Tamron, but it would be a hard sell based on resolution alone (at least in the copies I'm comparing). You won't look at the resolution results and call it a lens worth twice as much.

I commented recently when reviewing the Zeiss Milvus 18mm f/2.8 that we have a weird sort of parity in the market right now. It used to be that the best lenses were miles ahead of the average ones optically, and the first party lenses were far better than the third party ones. That's not really the case anymore. There are so many good lenses that it is hard for any one lens to separate itself from the pack in a noticeable way.

 

[IglooEater]

Smokin' thunderturtles, that's sharp- at f2.8. Less Chromatic aberration at 2.8 than the other at f/4. We have a winner here. Vignetting looks very strong though, and coma is yet to be seen.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Smokin' thunderturtles, that's sharp- at f2.8. Less Chromatic aberration at 2.8 than the other at f/4. We have a winner here. Vignetting looks very strong though, and coma is yet to be seen.

Re: Vignette - Consider other ultra-wide lenses wide open at f/2.8:
Tamron 15-30mm (Moderate vignette and poor transmission)
Zeiss 15mm prime (Abysmal vignette)
Zeiss 18mm f/2.8 (Heavy vignette)

Re: Coma & Astigmatism
"Jack Nichols" shared this in the TDP comments section:
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AiF5JDlxtuL0mut-bmDbmWOxDXnF9w

It appears to be very good at the wide-angle end, and at least decent at the telephoto end. I think most people would be more interested at the wide-angle end.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Smokin' thunderturtles, that's sharp- at f2.8. Less Chromatic aberration at 2.8 than the other at f/4. We have a winner here. Vignetting looks very strong though, and coma is yet to be seen.

Re: Vignette - Consider other ultra-wide lenses wide open at f/2.8:
Tamron 15-30mm (Moderate vignette and poor transmission)
Zeiss 15mm prime (Abysmal vignette)
Zeiss 18mm f/2.8 (Heavy vignette)

Re: Coma & Astigmatism
"Jack Nichols" shared this in the TDP comments section:
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AiF5JDlxtuL0mut-bmDbmWOxDXnF9w

It appears to be very good at the wide-angle end, and at least decent at the telephoto end. I think most people would be more interested at the wide-angle end.

Vignette is definitely heavier than the Tamron (very noticeable), but the point about light transmission on the Tamron is very valid. Only other thing I'm disappointed about is that the distortion seems fairly strong.

I'm hoping to get a decent night for astro in the near future, though I'm heading to Toronto for a few days tomorrow - won't see too many stars there!!

It can produce pretty stunning images. The following is one I took tomorrow. And no, this is not HDR. This has only had a few sliders moved in Lightroom. That extra dynamic range pretty much renders HDR unnecessary except in the most extreme situations.

 

[applecider]

Dustin says "the following is one I took tomorrow." ...
Now that's a future proof lens!! Have a nice trip ;D

 

[Larsskv]

Dustin. Very interesting comparison pictures, as always. Thank you. My two cents. It appears to my that the TDP pictures shows superior contrast in the Canon lens. Sharpness is harder to compare to the Tamron due to the different camera bodies that are used. The test pictures you have provided so far may not be the best in order to compare contrast differences between these two lenses.