Canon 16-35L MarkII

[Andy]

wow, lots of new stuff to absorb there - new af, faster digic, anti-dust, and fast! Nice job I say, this camera will have a huge appeal I would think.

I'm really interested to see the performance of the new 16-35L Mark II - if they can beat the corner gremlins, well, that's gonna be a great lens turned perfect!

[Andy]

I'm really interested to see the performance of the new 16-35L Mark II - if they can beat the corner gremlins, well, that's gonna be a great lens turned perfect!

Canon 16-35L MarkII
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/eflenses/ultrawide_zoom/EF16-35f28LIIUSM/ef16-35_28liiu_586x225.gif

Canon Specs Here (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907)

Preordered from Tallyn's (http://www.tallyns.com/tpp/amazing/itemdesc.asp?ic=1910B002&eq=&Tp=) today. Expected delivery, April.

[ziggy53]

Canon 16-35L MarkII
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/eflenses/ultrawide_zoom/EF16-35f28LIIUSM/ef16-35_28liiu_586x225.gif

Canon Specs Here (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907)

Preordered from Tallyn's (http://www.tallyns.com/tpp/amazing/itemdesc.asp?ic=1910B002&eq=&Tp=) today. Expected delivery, April.

Not too much of a price premium over the original.

I still have trouble believing that they use a replica element in the thing. That technology must have come a long way since I last researched it. The proof will be in the pudding.

[Andy]

Canon 16-35L MarkII
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/eflenses/ultrawide_zoom/EF16-35f28LIIUSM/ef16-35_28liiu_586x225.gif

Canon Specs Here (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907)

Preordered from Tallyn's (http://www.tallyns.com/tpp/amazing/itemdesc.asp?ic=1910B002&eq=&Tp=) today. Expected delivery, April.

w00t Tallyn's just called, it's being delivered today :D

Looks like shipping has begun :ivar

[jdryan3]

w00t Tallyn's just called, it's being delivered today :D

Looks like shipping has begun :ivar

Which means you will have it by 6:00pm EDT. I will be reading your review tonite while watching Letterman, correct. :D :D

[Andy]

Which means you will ahve it by 6:00pm EDT. I will be reading your review tonite while watching Letterman, correct. :D :D
Welllll I have pull with some folks, but not UPS. It's coming UPS ground so I'll probably have it Monday :lol3

[Nikolai]

Welllll I have pull with some folks, but not UPS. It's coming UPS ground so I'll probably have it Monday :lol3
Great, so we'll see in the House of Canon, like, what, Tuesday night? :wink

[claudermilk]

Welllll I have pull with some folks, but not UPS. It's coming UPS ground so I'll probably have it Monday :lol3

...then a new offering from Andy's House of Used Lenses on Tuesday, right? :eat

[Andy]

...then a new offering from Andy's House of Used Lenses on Tuesday, right? :eat
Don't think so... Canon has really made it so one can truly have 3 great lenses now, covering a range from 16mm to 200mm

16-35 f/2.8 L II
24-105 f/4L IS
70-200 f/2.8L IS

Sure makes life simpler, too :thumb

[patch29]

Looks like shipping has begun :ivar


B+H shows it in stock too. :deal

[ian408]

Don't think so... Canon has really made it so one can truly have 3 great lenses now, covering a range from 16mm to 200mm

16-35 f/2.8 L II
24-105 f/4L IS
70-200 f/2.8L IS

Sure makes life simpler, too :thumb

Even the original 16-35 isn't that bad. Of course, it could have been better at the wider end.

Combine it with a 1.4TC and you'd be good to go for most anything.

[ziggy53]

Even the original 16-35 isn't that bad. Of course, it could have been better at the wider end.

Combine it with a 1.4TC and you'd be good to go for most anything.

I've not had much luck coupling a 1.4x teleconverter with wide zooms. The Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L is the only lens I use fairly regularly with a converter.

[ian408]

I've not had much luck coupling a 1.4x teleconverter with wide zooms. The Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L is the only lens I use fairly regularly with a converter.

That should be the only lens you use the TC on. At least that's my opinion.

[ziggy53]

Even the original 16-35 isn't that bad. Of course, it could have been better at the wider end.

Combine it with a 1.4TC and you'd be good to go for most anything.
That should be the only lens you use the TC on. At least that's my opinion.

I'm confused? Is it two seperate thoughts in the first message?

Are you meaning a 1.4x TC in addition to Andy's list of lenses?

In that case, I agree!

[Nikolai]

I agree, 1.4 is a nice addition.
However, I'd add 100-400 to Andy's list :rolleyes Can't imagine my event shooting w/o it...

[wxwax]

That should be the only lens you use the TC on. At least that's my opinion.
:scratch Why?

[Nikolai]

:scratch Why?
I second this question. I use TC alot on 100-400, and almost never on 70-200. :scratch

[ian408]

IAre you meaning a 1.4x TC in addition to Andy's list of lenses?

:thumb

[ian408]

:scratch Why?

In that list of three lenses, I think the 70-200 is the only one that would
really require the TC. I mean why would you need to use it on a 16-35 or
a 24-105? Think about it.

[wxwax]

In that list of three lenses, I think the 70-200 is the only one that would
really require the TC. I mean why would you need to use it on a 16-35 or
a 24-105? Think about it.
Oh, I took you to mean no other Canon lens at all. Didn't realize you were only referrring to Andy's list.

I'm under the impression that the 1.4 TC can't be used on 16-35, 24-70 or 24-105. :dunno

This tele extender (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7462) can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses. Superb optically, it preserves the image quality of the lens it's mounted to and multiplies its focal length 1.4x. Effective aperture is reduced by one f-stop; autofocus is possible on any EOS camera when combined with a lens having an f/4 or faster maximum aperture.

[Andy]

Oh, I took you to mean no other Canon lens at all. Didn't realize you were only referrring to Andy's list.

I'm under the impression that the 1.4 TC can't be used on 16-35, 24-70 or 24-105. :dunno
:thumb I use it on my 70-200L as well, frequently. Wouln't really need it on the others, never even tried?

[wxwax]

:thumb I use it on my 70-200L as well, frequently. Wouln't really need it on the others, never even tried?
Wouldn't work.

I've used it on the 300 as well.

[ian408]

Oh, I took you to mean no other Canon lens at all. Didn't realize you were only referrring to Andy's list.

I'm under the impression that the 1.4 TC can't be used on 16-35, 24-70 or 24-105. :dunno

You're right, the TC can't be used. But like I said, why would you?

[Andy]

Canon 16-35L MarkII
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/eflenses/ultrawide_zoom/EF16-35f28LIIUSM/ef16-35_28liiu_586x225.gif

Canon Specs Here (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907)

Preordered from Tallyn's (http://www.tallyns.com/tpp/amazing/itemdesc.asp?ic=1910B002&eq=&Tp=) today. Expected delivery, April.
Just arrived. Pics soon.

[jdryan3]

Just arrived. Pics soon.

:lust :lust

[wxwax]

Cool. Can't wait to hear about the corners. :ivar

[Nikolai]

Get ready for some Mark I's to hit the flea market! :wink

It already did. :deal
Yesterday Rutt posted his 1DII for [gulp] $1,600.. :huh
I think it's gone already though... :dunno

[wxwax]

It already did. :deal
Yesterday Rutt posted his 1DII for [gulp] $1,600.. :huh
I think it's gone already though... :dunno
I think he means 16-35 mk 1's.

[Nikolai]

I think he means 16-35 mk 1's.
My bad...:rolleyes
But why compromise on the old MkI lens when Andy for sure will post his MkII this month, if not this week... :wink

[wxwax]

My bad...:rolleyes
But why compromise on the old MkI lens when Andy for sure will post his MkII this month, if not this week... :wink
Price.

[Andy]

My bad...:rolleyes
But why compromise on the old MkI lens when Andy for sure will post his MkII this month, if not this week... :wink
If this wasn't getting olde, it'd be funny :lol3

[Andy]

Canon 16-35L MarkII
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/eflenses/ultrawide_zoom/EF16-35f28LIIUSM/ef16-35_28liiu_586x225.gif

Canon Specs Here (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907)

Preordered from Tallyn's (http://www.tallyns.com/tpp/amazing/itemdesc.asp?ic=1910B002&eq=&Tp=) today. Expected delivery, April.
So, I didn't read the specs very carefully :lol3 they changed the filter size :wxwax it's now 82mm. Sigh. Off to www.2filter.com soon I guess :(

Ziggy - you'll explain to me why the diameter changed? :ear

[patch29]

So, I didn't read the specs very carefully :lol3 they changed the filter size :wxwax it's now 82mm. Sigh. Off to www.2filter.com soon I guess :(

Ziggy - you'll explain to me why the diameter changed? :ear

Reading is hard. :bad

So they could sell more filters. :deal

[Andy]

So they could sell more filters. :deal

When did Canon buy B+W? :lol3

[patch29]

When did Canon buy B+W? :lol3


:wxwax Who said B+W did not offer Canon some kickbacks on 82mm filter sales in April and May 07? :D

Shouldn't you be posting some test photos for us? :deal

[Andy]

:wxwax Who said B+W did not offer Canon some kickbacks on 82mm filter sales in April and May 07? :D

Shouldn't you be posting some test photos for us? :deal
Yeah- I have shot a few thus far. So far, so good. More later.

[patch29]

Yeah- I have shot a few thus far. So far, so good. More later.


Your fans cannot take the suspense. Which lens will Andy keep or sell? Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of How the Shutter Clicks. :rofl

[herion]

So, I didn't read the specs very carefully :lol3 they changed the filter size :wxwax it's now 82mm. Sigh. Off to www.2filter.com (http://www.2filter.com) soon I guess :(

Ziggy - you'll explain to me why the diameter changed? :ear

Andy, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you didn't get one of the Conurus-converted Zeiss N 17-35!!:wink

[mercphoto]

Ziggy - you'll explain to me why the diameter changed? :ear
I thought it was because people complained about vignetting with the old lens. The way to solve that is to make the front element larger or move it further in (make the overall lens shorter).

[Andy]

I thought it was because people complained about vignetting with the old lens. The way to solve that is to make the front element larger or move it further in (make the overall lens shorter).
Nah the vigging on the MkI was never a problem that I experienced. Wide open, the Mk2 vigs the same as the Mk1, AFAICT....

[ziggy53]

...

Ziggy - you'll explain to me why the diameter changed? :ear

Andy,

There are several differences between the two lenses, Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM and the Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L II USM.

The biggest difference is that the newer lens has 16 elements in 12 groups, vs 14 elements in 10 groups for the older lens. While the two lenses share the same aperture and range specifications, they are obviously two different formulations, the newer being more complicated and sophisticated. Apparently this is the price to pay for better resolution across the image field.

Enjoy!

[Andy]

Andy, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you didn't get one of the Conurus-converted Zeiss N 17-35!!:wink
Thought about it, but since I like the focal range for handheld work, too, I wanted the convenience of AF as well, so I was rather excited that Canon decided to pour some dough into improving this lens :D

[ziggy53]

Thought about it, but since I like the focal range for handheld work, too, I wanted the convenience of AF as well, so I was rather excited that Canon decided to pour some dough into improving this lens :D

It looks like Conurus may have achieved the unthinkable; an adaptation of the Zeiss N 17-35mm, f2.8 to Canon EF mount "with" autofocus and auto aperture.

http://en.conurus.com/faq.html

... and a review:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/cz17_35/v_nikon1735/index.html

Pretty cool stuff, but the specs of the new Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L II USM are awfully great! Could it be that the Zeiss optics have true competition?

[Andy]

It looks like Conurus may have achieved the unthinkable; an adaptation of the Zeiss N 17-35mm, f2.8 to Canon EF mount "with" autofocus and auto aperture.

http://en.conurus.com/faq.html

... and a review:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/cz17_35/v_nikon1735/index.html

Pretty cool stuff, but the specs of the new Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L II USM are awfully great! Could it be that the Zeiss optics have true competition?Hey thanks for the links - I wasn't aware of that mod.

[Andy]

Andy, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you didn't get one of the Conurus-converted Zeiss N 17-35!!:wink
Also, I'm not a fan of the weight of that lens. It's almost double the weight of the Canon 16-35L II. That adds up. Not to mention the cost factory :evil

[claudermilk]

You guys are EVIL, you know that? Those Conurus mods are seriously tempting. Hmm...a nice KEH-sourced exotic CZ mega-sharp make-your-photo-buddies-green lens that just plugs onto your EOS body. :eat

[conurus]

You guys are EVIL, you know that? Those Conurus mods are seriously tempting. Hmm...a nice KEH-sourced exotic CZ mega-sharp make-your-photo-buddies-green lens that just plugs onto your EOS body. :eat
Let me additionally tempt you with the CZ Makro-Sonnar 100/2.8
http://support.conurus.com/files/chanchan_733.jpg

100% crop
sharpening=0
Digital Rebel XTi
RAW converter: DPP
ISO 400, 1/200, f/5.6
Autofocus; ONE-SHOT mode locking on the eye
http://support.conurus.com/files/chanchan100percent_985.jpg

You can clearly see the photographer (me), the flash, the living room, furniture in her eyes. The frame at the bottom of her eye was the keyboard of the laptop computer she was perching on.

By the way, the bird's name was "Chan Chan". We used to call her "Chandler" until we realized she was a hen after she laid an egg. :rofl She is a St Thomas conure.

[claudermilk]

Let me additionally tempt you with the CZ Makro-Sonnar 100/2.8
http://support.conurus.com/files/chanchan_733.jpg

100% crop
sharpening=0
Digital Rebel XTi
RAW converter: DPP
ISO 400, 1/200, f/5.6
Autofocus; ONE-SHOT mode locking on the eye
http://support.conurus.com/files/chanchan100percent_985.jpg

You can clearly see the photographer (me), the flash, the living room, furniture in her eyes. The frame at the bottom of her eye was the keyboard of the laptop computer she was perching on.

By the way, the bird's name was "Chan Chan". We used to call her "Chandler" until we realized she was a hen after she laid an egg. :rofl She is a St Thomas conure.

Augh! Quit it! :D Seriously, this looks like the kind of conversion to get fence-sitters like me to try some exotic glass. I need to do some research to decide if it's really worth it to try some of these out. New thread on these, maybe?

[XHawkeye]

The-Digital-Picture's 16-35 2.8 II Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

[wxwax]

The-Digital-Picture's 16-35 2.8 II Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
:thumb Improved sharpness in the corners, but not yet nirvana.

[rutt]

I'm still dying to hear what Andy had to say about this lens.

Or anyone else who has one for that matter, but Andy seems to be especially fussy about corner sharpness in WA lenses.

[Andy]

I'm still dying to hear what Andy had to say about this lens.

Or anyone else who has one for that matter, but Andy seems to be especially fussy about corner sharpness in WA lenses.Have you seen the weather in the northeast lately? :lol3

I haven't shot much with it yet :(

Soon, soon, soon I promise!

Early indicators:

* vigs LESS than MK1 at f/2.8 and f/4
* SHARPER on the FF body in the corners, yes, for sure.
* LESS CA on high contrast areas than the MKI

[Andy]

:thumb Improved sharpness in the corners, but not yet nirvana.
In real-life shooting, it's actually MUCH sharper in the corners. If you put an eye-chart in the corners while shooting El Cap, you might notice something, but if you take the eye charts out, you'd see sharp leaves :)

[wxwax]

In real-life shooting, it's actually MUCH sharper in the corners. If you put an eye-chart in the corners while shooting El Cap, you might notice something, but if you take the eye charts out, you'd see sharp leaves :)
That's encouraging, thanks.

[evoryware]

It's going to be beautiful this weekend/week :thumb :ivar

[seastack]

I'm really looking forward to your assesment and posts from this lens. Did it come in handy in Utah?

The only downside I see so far is that SingRay's variable netural density filter won't fit this lens larger filter size. In the scheme of things it's a small thing, really.

[Andy]

I'm really looking forward to your assesment and posts from this lens. Did it come in handy in Utah?

The only downside I see so far is that SingRay's variable netural density filter won't fit this lens larger filter size. In the scheme of things it's a small thing, really.
Too funny.... I'm in Utah shooting lansdscapes for a week, and I barely used it, favoring instead my 24mm TS-E and it's super usefulness for panos :)

I did shoot this with it: http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/2907824#156745435-L-LB and this http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/2907824#156530113-L-LB

And I'm sure I have more.. I'll look again :)

[Andy]

And I'm sure I have more.. I'll look again :)

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/158760439-L.jpg

I took this shot to torture this lens a bit.

Notice on this one, that the flaring is extremely well controlled. Also, look very very carefully at the high contrast edges - there is an amazingly low amount of Chromatic Abberation - in this case, just a bit of red fringing, very, very easily fixed in either ACR or Photoshop. This file is unsharpened. f/8, ISO200, 25mm.

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/157250738-L.jpg

[ziggy53]

Andy,

Those look great to me! :thumb I am tempted.

[rutt]

Jeff Hirsch who should know says the mark 1 had to be redesigned because it didn't work as well for digital as it did for film? He claims that the the mark 1 was a super sharp lens for film, but somehow didn't translate so well to digital.

Does this make sense? If so, why?

[Peter Dumont]

I took this shot to torture this lens a bit.

Notice on this one, that the flaring is extremely well controlled. Also, look very very carefully at the high contrast edges - there is an amazingly low amount of Chromatic Abberation - in this case, just a bit of red fringing, very, very easily fixed in either ACR or Photoshop. This file is unsharpened. f/8, ISO200, 25mm. Original here (http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/157250738-O.jpg).

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/157250738-L.jpg

The mark II looks great here, Andy ! I have the Mark I.
Maybe not as good, but the mark II is very very pricey here in the Netherlands.
The mark I has become my favourite lens for streetphotography.
I had started a thread here on DG
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62045

Have a look.

Bye,

Peter Dumont

[ChrisJ]

I did shoot this with it: http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/2907824#156745435-L-LB

Awesome!

[seastack]

Thanks Andy, very, very nice. That sells it for me. Gotta have it.

[gus]

Don't think so...

:lol3 turn it up sport ! You are preaching to the wrong crowd.

I keep thinking of the scorpion & the frog story...because i am.

[Andy]

When you need wide, the 16-35L is really good. A not-so-typical use, but very glad I had it today, this was a Tae Kwon Do event, and this was not the regular venue - this room was extremely tight, I was on the floor literally a few feet from the kids.

16-35L II on Canon 5D, @ 16mm (click for exif)
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/161407651-L.jpg (http://www.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=161407651)

I actually cropped it some for the final shot:
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/161405936-S.jpg

[wxwax]

You couldn't use the 24 T/S for panos? :scratch

:flip

[Andy]

You couldn't use the 24 T/S for panos? :scratch

:flip
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

[seastack]

The 16-35 II is a great, great lens. Just got one recently and it's much better than the 17-40 I used to have, especially with sharpness at the edges. Highly recommended and as Andy showed, it's a versatile lens that's good for more than just landscape work. My 24-105 remains my primary walk-a-about but I find myself swapping quite a bit with the 16-35L II and 70-200 f4L.

Have found that lens flare, even with sun in frame, is more than acceptable with good contrast maintained (only done this with polarizer on). Have also found that vignette can be a small issue but only in SOME situations. Very infrequent. I assume this has to do with angle of light entering the lens and hitting full-frame sensor?

Couldn't have taken this shot with the 24 T/S (but I suspect that lens will be my next purchase) :wink

http://www.hydeimages.com/photos/167856880-L.jpg

16-35L II @ 16mm on 5d, f11, 1/500, -2/3ev, fill flash -2/3 with Stofen diffuser and head at 45º, Hoya Pro Digital polarizer, ISO 400.

Thanks Andy!:D:D:D

[Ginny]

The 16-35 II is a great, great lens. Just got one recently and it's much better than the 17-40 I used to have ....

Does the 16-35 II perform twice as well as the 17-40 (at twice the price) for a landscape guy that almost always shoots at f/8 or f/11?

Actually a bit more than twice the price since the 17-40 has the same filter size as the 24-105.

[seastack]

Does the 16-35 II perform twice as well as the 17-40 (at twice the price) for a landscape guy that almost always shoots at f/8 or f/11?

Actually a bit more than twice the price since the 17-40 has the same filter size as the 24-105.

No, certainly not "twice as well" :wink

Some of the best landscapes I've ever seen were taken with the 17-40, especially by Marc Adamus (http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/). I believe he said recently that he was looking at the 16-35II but was probably picking up the 24 T/S next.

And yes, the 82mm filter size will increase your filter costs. The new Hoya Pro Digital polarizer (its extra slim) costs about $275.

But if you don't have a superwide, you have lots of bucks, and you want a 2.8 lens, then I highly recommend this lens.