Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 16-35 vs 16-35II  (Read 3202 times)
rogan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« on: November 12, 2008, 12:03:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone actually tested the difference between these two? I have the older version and it is just not cutting it anymore and wondering if the new version is really any sharper?
Thanks
Logged
pindman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2008, 01:31:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I had the original and ordered the Series II.  The original was quite good, but poor around the edges at wide aperatures.  The Series II was much better at the edges, but slightly weaker in the center.  I kept the Series II, but there is quite a difference between copies in all the Canon L glass.

Paul
Logged
jmwscot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2008, 01:52:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rogan
Has anyone actually tested the difference between these two? I have the older version and it is just not cutting it anymore and wondering if the new version is really any sharper?
Thanks
I have the 16-35II and find it excellent regards sharpness and contrast. Michael Reichmann did a good review on it on it. It is still on his site. Also you can do a comparison on line here:Compare 16-35 and 16-35II and a full review here:Review of 16-35II

Regards, John
Logged
rogan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2008, 03:00:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jmwscot
I have the 16-35II and find it excellent regards sharpness and contrast. Michael Reichmann did a good review on it on it. It is still on his site. Also you can do a comparison on line here:Compare 16-35 and 16-35II and a full review here:Review of 16-35II

Regards, John

JMWSCOT,
 Could you please point me to MR's 16-35 II review. All I can find is Fred Miranda's 16-35mm(original one) review
Thanks
Logged
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2008, 01:01:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rogan
Has anyone actually tested the difference between these two? I have the older version and it is just not cutting it anymore and wondering if the new version is really any sharper?
Thanks

I've had both lenses and beyond the lenses the cameras used play just as an important factor.  My 16-35 was great on my 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II's.  On the 1Ds Mark III the 16-35 corners turn to a smeared mush at just about any aperture and any focal length.

The 16-35 II can be very good but I found you have to calibrate it via the microadjustment in the Canon 1Ds Mark III body.  Once I did the center sharpened up nicely (the lens seems to come from Canon favoring the foreground over the middle ground).  I also found that the lens still is not at its best from 16mm-19mm on the 1Ds Mark III but that depends upon what you are shooting.

Here's my blog post on it.

Jon Roemer
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 10:11:53 PM by JonRoemer » Logged

jmwscot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2008, 08:44:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rogan
JMWSCOT,
 Could you please point me to MR's 16-35 II review. All I can find is Fred Miranda's 16-35mm(original one) review
Thanks
I was sure I saw a review of it there. I can only see the original 16-35 review. I definitely saw a reference to it somewhere on his site. Sorry about the confusion and taking so long to reply. I hope you are able to make a good decision on the available information.

John
Logged
sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2008, 06:15:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JonRoemer
I've had both lenses and beyond the lenses the cameras used play just as an important factor.  My 16-35 was great on my 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II's.  On the 1Ds Mark III the 16-35 corners turn to a smeared mush at just about any aperture and any focal length.


Same thing happens to me with an 85 1.2 on a 5D and on a 1DsM2. Precise focusing wide open on the 5D and so so on the other.
Logged

JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2008, 11:20:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sergio
Same thing happens to me with an 85 1.2 on a 5D and on a 1DsM2. Precise focusing wide open on the 5D and so so on the other.

Sergio - There's two different issues here.  One is the lens' ability to focus accurately and the other is how well the lens performs optically on a particular body.  In your case it sounds like a simple focus issue.  If you have the option to drop both the lens and the body at a Canon repair center they can calibrate the body to the lens and you'd be good to go.  On a 1DsM2 I'd recommend selecting focus points manually (set the camera to use only the center and the outer 9) and then when shooting wide open on a 1.2 lens only using the "+"-type focus points.  Assuming your subject matter permits this, things like portraits, etc.

With the 85/1.2 I found that the 1Ds and the 1DsM2 bodies I had all needed a tune-up by Canon to be 100% accurate with the lens wide open.  On a Mark III body you can do this tune up yourself via the microadjustment settings in the camera menus and running some tests.

--
Jon Roemer
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad