Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: returning the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L USM II  (Read 14952 times)
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2007, 03:46:07 PM »
ReplyReply

dennishh, how did you determine 10% and 20% difference between lenses? test chart - if so what chart did you use?

did all 5 lenses have similar serial numbers?  overall, the distribution of lens "quality" will be statistical, but within that there may be periods of time with parts at tolerance limits, machines and tolls at edge of wear limits, "monday morning" syndrome, etc. etc.

i'd be happy to hear anyone's recommendations for lens testing
Logged
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2007, 08:50:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
one word....PRIMES !
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


At 24mm the 16-35II is better then my 24 tilt or 24 1.4 ..
Logged

stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2007, 09:49:32 PM »
ReplyReply

from what i've read, "better than the Canon 24 or 24TS" is not a great recommendation

if a variety of rangefinder lenses of demonstrably better quality can be adapted to Canon full frame cameras, and Canon can make a very good to excellent 24mm, why can't (won't) they make at least one excellent rectilinear 18, 19, or 20mm prime?  it doesn't have to be f1.4 or f2, it "just" needs low distortion, good color, and sharpness compared to the rangefinder lenses

i think most photograpers paying for a lot of pixels will be willing to pay for glass that can make use of those pixels - offer a "L+" line with Leica quality and quality control
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2007, 09:57:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At 24mm the 16-35II is better then my 24 tilt or 24 1.4 ..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At 18mm, an old Nikkor 18mm f3.5 is better than ANY Canon zoom I've compared it to at the same focal.  And better than a Canon 24 prime is not saying much...

,
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 09:58:35 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2007, 01:37:01 AM »
ReplyReply

"At 18mm, an old Nikkor 18mm f3.5 is better than ANY Canon zoom I've compared it to at the same focal. And better than a Canon 24 prime is not saying much... "

I too use and love my old 18mm 3.5. I'm going to Samy's in the morning and will compare it to the new 16-35 but I'm not expecting much.
Logged
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2007, 06:17:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is a pretty though review:

www.16-9.net/lens_tests/index.html
Logged

macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2007, 12:33:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps it's just time to accept that if you want an ultra wide zoom (like the 16-35) you are going to have to sacrifice some quality, especially with increasingly advanced digital sensors. At least if you don't want to break the bank and/or go crazy in obsession.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 12:35:11 PM by macgyver » Logged
pixelpixcomau
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2007, 08:00:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi guys,

My first post here, so please be gentle  

I have the 16-35 2.8L II on test from Canon at the moment and have been comparing it to my 17-40 f4 L

From my field tests I pretty much concluded that the 17-40 was the better lens and that any advantage that the 2.8 "may" offer, was not work the extra coin.

Then I discovered something really weird with the 16-35 and I am starting to think that it's a dud and that I need to test another.  

This image is a crop from a 16mm @ f4 sample.  It looks like camera movement, but this is 1/1000 sec, tripod mounted, mirror locked up and timer delayed.



and just to prove that there is no movement, here is a section from the middle of the same image...



More samples can be seen here ADPOTD Forum
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 08:02:35 AM by pixelpixcomau » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad