16-35 - first impressions

[edward_h]

Got my 16-35 today. It's small, light (compared to the 24-70) and

lotsa fun. I use it on a 1d2, so I'm not getting the full effect.

 

The first thing that struck me was that I should have gotten a better

lens hood. The normal lens hood is criminally ugly and almost useless.

A better hood is the hood for the 24/1.4. I've been very careful with

the lens so far, due to the hood being so small.

 

That... and the fact that dropping and trashing a 24-70 sure as hell

makes you a lot more careful with lenses, even though they're L.

 

The lens doesn't extend when zooming, which I love. Now about the

sharpness: it's not 100% sharp, not at the edges. Center sharpness is

normal L sharpness. I'm sure it's quite difficult to make a wide-angle

zoom of this focal length so I didn't expect any miracles. But it's

ok, if I wanted corner to corner wide-angle sharpness I'd have gotten

me a 14L (and paid through my nose for it).

 

The 16-35 is a perfect weatherproofed documentary lens and even though

it's nice and wide, I'm sure that the 24-70 will still be my standard

lens, when I get it back from repairs. :)

 

I'm a moron, I know.

[chiswick_john]

Only at the 16mm setting does mine soften at the corners - 20-35 it's very sharp across the whole frame - much better than my 24 2.8 prime.

[WM]

Enjoy your new lens Edward ! The 16-35 is very nice to use, and I use it on my 10d, and for super wide effect, I put it on a film body and do lots of wacky stuff. I love it !

 

I'm still dreaming of the 24-70L though.

[KenPapai]

Nice write-up Edward. I have a cheesey little 16-35

<a href="http://www.kenpapai.com/pro/lens_EF16_35tests.html">

review page here</a>. It is <i>far</i> from comprehensive and needs a lot more sample images. I do have a couple 100% crops there (but you'll remind me I need some wide-open tests, I have those but have not updated my little review page).

<p>

Have fun.

<img src="http://www.kenpapai.com/pro/img/16_35_8766z.jpg">

[scott squire nonfiction]

I just now got the hood from the 24 1.4L to replace the dinner plate hood for the 16-35,

and I can confirm that it's a good investment. Doesn't vignette (that I can see in my

informal tests) on a 1.3x camera, and offers a much more robust physical and optical

protection as compared to the stock shade. It's also much more compact and fits better in

the bag, either in the normal or reversed position.

 

Fits on a bit tight (in fact I bought it from a fellow who didn't think it fit, even after trying it

on his own lens... it is tighter than usual, but with a good even application of torque it

went on fine).

[digitmstr]

THe hoods are specifically designed to fit cetains lens without vignetting, while providing the best protection. I don't know how you are going to deal with the 24mm hood since it will likely vignette with the lens at 16mm, even on a 1.3 crop.

[tom_christiansen]

Re: Hood for 16-35, 17-40:

 

I have the 17-40/4 L and was rather disappointed by the supplied hood. It might (note "might") be effective at 17 mm on full-frame cameras, but with my 10D it's pretty useless. I use a Hoya rubber hood with my lens. Supposedly it should be for 35mm to 200mm lenses, but I don't recall getting any vignetting even at 17mm with the 10D. The hood has three "settings" allowing you to select the lenght closest to optimal for the lens. It's a quite nice design. Here's a link to it:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=23170&is=REG

 

BTW: I'm not associated with Hoya or B&H. I just happen to find that hood highly useful.

 

Tom

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have the EW-83DII hood (the 24/1.4 hood) for my 17-40/4L (which takes the same hood as the 16-35) on my 20D (1.6-crop). I also found that it's a tighter fit than the original. Just for kicks, I tried using this hood while the lens was mounted on my Elan 7E, and I didn't notice any vignetting. But that was just looking through the viewfinder (which is less than a 100% viewfinder), and I didn't have any huge uniform subjects available so it was very hard to tell. I'd be surprised if it didn't vignette in real life (i.e. when shooting on an actual frame of film). It would be relatively easy for you to test this on your 1D II and see whether it vignettes at the wide end of the zoom range.</p>

[scott squire nonfiction]

Giampiero,

There are lots of designs that are compromises, and lots of ways around the compromises

that skirt the original design briefs. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. This

appears to work, and if I find otherwise in actual use, I'll post the results here.

 

I didn't invent this--it's received (internet) wisdom. I will say that when I got the 16-35

after selling the 24 1.4, I was in hate with the big hood, and longed for the more elegant

shape and profile of the narrower hood. I was pleased to learn that I might be able to

retrofit it, and settled in to looking for one.

 

How I'm going to deal with the vignetting, to answer your implicit question, is to allow it to

continue not to exist, as it seems to have done until now.

 

It's called hot rodding, and it can be fun. At a certain point, if you realize you've done

something you shouldn't have, you can revert the modifications to stock. No harm no foul.

I'm not evangelizing, only relating. You are under no pressure to try this at home.

[edward_h]

> I don't know how you are going to deal with the 24mm hood since it will likely vignette with the lens at 16mm, even on a 1.3 crop.

 

You speculate. You do not know.

 

I've actually used a 16-35 with a 24 hood on a 1.3x camera and it doesn't vignette.

 

I know. You do not.

[chiswick_john]

This lens is big enough without a hood so I just use a descent filter to protect the front end. I've not managed to get this lens to flare in any practical picture taking situations yet so can't see any practical reason to use a hood.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I just now got the hood from the 24 1.4L to replace the dinner plate hood for the 16-35, and I can confirm that it's a good investment. Doesn't vignette (that I can see in my informal tests) on a 1.3x camera, and offers a much more robust physical and optical protection as compared to the stock shade. It's also much more compact and fits better in the bag, either in the normal or reversed position.

 

I don't understand how a lens hood can be more compact yet offer better protection. The two seem to contradict each other.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[scott squire nonfiction]

Yakim,

The 24mm hood is longer/deeper (so about 4mm less compact in that dimension), but

much smaller in diameter, so the angle of approach of random fingers, flecks of spit,

flying golf balls or light rays must be much narrower or closer to the lens' axis in order to

hit the front objective. In this way, it protects better: by rejecting more of what's not

wanted.

 

It's also better in that it takes up a lot less space in the bag, and presents a much smaller

black circle to your subjects (presumably somewhat less intimidating if you believe in that

sort of thing).

[mondiani]

welcome to the club I just love mine. I also own the 24-70mm but I use one or the other depending circonstances not subtile image quality!