DSLR Photography Forum

Full Version: Canon 16-35mm f2.8L Mk2...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
....has arrived!
I'm fairly insane at present, so have been obsessively giving it the once-over today.
I'm putting together a large(but still probably unhelpfully subjective) test/review, which is too large and impolite to post in one thread here...SO...I'll be posting the "data" and opinions on the Photostories and Journalism section. Moderators: if you feel this should be reposted back to this section, please feel free. It will run into several parts so as not to be too unwieldy to view. Hope to see you over there soon.
There's a general caveat: I've no other "L" lenses, nor the Mark 1, to objectively compare it with...nor can I give any useful info on this sample's Zone C performance on full-frame. If you're bored already, switch off now. :|

Big Grin
Looking forward to it!

And congrats on the new lens!!
Congratulations Zig... Smile

Thanks so much for your review of this lens.
Ta Irma!

I've just posted an appendix in the same place, by the way folks.
Great writeup!

Good info for anyone shopping for a wa zoom in the canon mount.

Looking forward to see some "real" world snaps with it. What will you typically application be for this lens ?
Thx Paul!
Actually, that's now a harder question to answer than I'd have thought: As I said in the "review", and as matthew remarked upon, I did think it was just a matter of "being wider" for when I go full frame; yet this lens does so many different textures and treatments as apertures really start to do a whole lot more than I've hitherto observed. I think it will both enable me and challenge me to expand what sort of shots I can reach for. I'm trying not to be too complicated here, but I remember when I got the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, its "character" shone through to such an extent that I used it for what it could do(landscapes and portarits) rather than what it was expected to do.
Similarly, though I'll most typically be using it for landscapes, I'm convinced I'll be able to use its apertures not just to increase depth of field but to try and match the way it resolves textures to the features of the landscapes. I think I'll be encouraged to make use of its low distortion to explore more in the way of architecture, for instance. Also, wide-aperture work such as portraits are going to work well, I feel...it doesn't just "go" to 35mm, it has a whole new texture and soft-background character than at other focal lengths. In addition, whereas before, I'd have chosen(for example) f8 in a wide landscape shot over f11 just for an extra stop of light, I find that f11 has a whole new quality, a sort of low-contrast glow, that makes it quite different in feel to the more contrasty f8 or the warm softer quality of f16. As I've said somewhere or other, I've not come across the quality of its f11 performance even in my medium-format work...sort of "so sharp, it's soft" feel. I'll also be able to explore, say, f3.5 more creatively, as it's not wide-open and edge-soft until f2.8 at the wider end. And of course, there's all sorts of indoor and low-light applications I've not thought of yet.
So: no idea really, Paul, it's all "wide open", as it were...but it's going to be an enjoyable adventure finding out!
I've been thinking why my attitude is so different to my 10-22mm(apart from the full-frame implications). The latter is certainly sharp from f5.6, and at f8/11, excellently so...but it's just that the 16-35 really excites me in a whole new way.
I just want to draw attention to its performance at 25mm f11, just as I find it interesting.
It's just from my test series and I'll let it make its own comments, in a sense.
Firstly, uncropped: a straight raw to jpeg conversion at standard, with a minimal amount of smart sharpening in PS:

[Image: 25mmf11WEB.jpg]

Now a 100% crop from the centre:

[Image: 25mmf11crop.jpg]

And a 200% crop:

[Image: 25mmf11crop%20copy.jpg]
.73mm Dunlop nylon plectrum?

The lens seems to be doing well in the center, as shown here and in your other guitar posts. But how are the edges? That would be my "issue" with the lens, if indeed they are notably soft on a 1.6x camera.
Ahhhhyesss...it is indeed so, well spotted that man..(so much more businesslike than my erstwhile .38s..arf...)
Yes(which is the concern as we've said): here's its consistently least-good extreme corner at 100%, from the same shot, at the bottom left(my tests before this were with the camera in vertical):

[Image: 25mmf11%20rl%20corner.jpg]
.38s? They make .38s??? Dang that's thin. Why not save your money and just use a shred of paper for a pick? Wink

Okay, back on topic: I would really consider sending it back for a replacement, or at least sending it to Canon for alignment under the warranty. As Wedding Shooter noted in a previous post, the soft corners can be fixed. I'd expect softness in the corners on a full-frame camera, but not with a 1.6x crop. You paid too much money. Just my opinion.
Would you call that 100% crop form the corner "soft" then, slej, compared to what one would expect at this magnification?
It's acceptable, but if we consider that it was taken at the middle of the zoom range at f/11, and it's been sharpened in post-processing, I wouldn't exactly call it crisp. Smile Also, everything in the picture is pretty much in the plane of focus, so it's not like you're at the extreme edges of the depth of field causing things to appear out of focus.

Take that shot with the aperture stopped down just a little bit from wide open, maybe a full stop to f/4, and compare. On a 1.6x crop, the corners should be nearly as sharp as the center with that lens. You mentioned possibly going to a full-frame camera - just think how soft the corners could be in that situation if they are already soft on one with a smaller sensor. The Mk1 version of this lens was highly criticized for its corner and edge softness, but the Mk2 should be much better.

Heck, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 gave sharper corners on my 10D when stopped down that much. Other factors make the 16-35 a vastly superior lens, of course.

Anyway, it seems to me a minor inconvenience to either ask for a replacement lens, or to send it to Canon for calibration. I got excellent service from them when I sent the 70-200mm f/4L in for service; it was like a new and much better lens when I got it back.

Think of it as buying a high-end guitar that isn't properly intonated. It won't sound the way it should. But the potential is there, you just gotta get it tweaked. Unfortunately you can't do your own "set ups" on a lens, so send it off to Canon. Cool
Yes indeed: I'm actually in agreement witth you, as I've been aware of this.
I returned it to the retailer today for exchange(and got treated as if I were the one at fault, not the lens, by someone I found very hard to understand); once I "proved" that I was within my rights to ask for a replacement, rather than having to wait for Canon to get it to the state it should have been before it left them, I eventually managed to get the guy to grudgingly let me have one by next week. Ya'd have thought he was having to grind the glass himself.
"Drool, Britannia" an' all that.