charles_mason Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Last June I was roundly criticized by the "Canon Is Always Right" zealots here when I said that the 16-35/2.8 was a dog and needed a redesign. This was the thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GoTE Now see: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022207eos1dmarkiiiaccs.asp Well it looks like at least Canon agreed with me, even if the zealots here did not. Always nice to be right...(or at least, for a change)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfarmer Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Well, I don't know about others but my 16-35L performs just fine. The only issues I've noticed are slight distortion & vignetting at 16mm/f2.8 on the 5D -- but show me any other lens at this price or less that doesn't have those effects when fully open so wide. It just comes with the territory, but also explains why the MkII version has an 82mm thread. People are entitled to their opinions, of course, but the 16-35L gets bashed a bit too much I think. Probably because of the price. And just because a new one's coming out doesn't mean the old one sucks -- just that the new one is supposed to be better. But then again, I heard that about the new 50mmf/1.2L too. But that lens proved quite disappointing for me, compared the f/1.4. Just my $0.02... ALF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_mason Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 ALF, Your points about a new lens being worse are sensible, of course. But the marketing on this lens is that it is sharper than the current model. I don't know what camera you are using, but even on my old 20D, wide open to at least 5.6, the corners were very unsharp. Now on my 5D it is, of course, even worse. I have access to 7 of these lenses, and they are all the same. I do hope the new lens addresses this problem. Just my 2C. again, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Yep, according to Canon's own MTF curves and the only controlled full frame tests I have seen of the 16-35 vs the 17-40 the 17-40 was quite a bit sharper, specially in the corners. On top of that there seemed to be a larger number of 'bad lens' reports with the 16-35 than usual. I guess Canon was starting to loose sales to 3rd party manufactures. Note that the 85/1.2L was updated after a lack luster performance. Perhaps Canon do listen, or perhaps it is just commercial. Back to the MKII, it does look a lot better in the corners based on the MTF curves, lets just hope that consistantly follows through in manufacture. I have comparitive MTF plots at the below link for those iterested. http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/15mm_Region/index.htm http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/20mm_Region_A/index.htm http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/24mm_Region_B/index.htm http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/28mm_Region_B/index.htm http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/35mm_Region_B/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valo_soul Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 What? The 85L has no 3rd party competition. If you meant the 16-35, then yes it has tons of competition. Also, the 85 wasn't updated due to lackluster performance. It was updated to focus faster, ghost/flare less (which wasn't really a problem to begin with) and it was given a circular aperture. The optical formula is the exact same and it's marvelous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conraderb Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 what's this? original 85L had lackluster performance? hahahahaha. thank you. I needed a laugh today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_jovic Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Yeah, the old 16-35 sucks. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valo_soul Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 lol wow what is this? Attack of the Nikon brigade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I couldn't disagree more with the original intent (and misguided reading) of the original self-serving "question" posted here by Charles. Who ever said the 16-35 was a 'dog' beside those with an axe to grind? Take off! Thanks, now go shoot some pictures and quit posting nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_mason Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 ""Canon Is Always Right" zealots" guess what--they're back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjb Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 The 16 35 is a good lens and suits most folks, But did not suit my purpose, neither did the 17 40, with close up group shots as we do in restaurants and nightclubs it distorted badly stray lights such as flashing strobes and stage lights caused large amount of flare. I`ve used the Sigma 15 30 for 6yrs which out performed both Canon lenses in all ways for this work except for one thing, reliability. 3 lenses with 4 major repairs one being fixed right now. apart from dropping I`ve never had a canon lens break down. I`m looking forward for this one, in belief that the new one is an improvement. But again I would not say the old one was bad, in fact with respect I know Ken P will give the opposite story as the 16 35 suits his purpose. have a great day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 OK Charles maybe technically you're right. First of all who else would post frequently or ardently to the EOS forum except those who love the system? Secondly, yes, the original 16-35 is not perfect, but it's an excellent L caliber lens worth the dollars and certainly Canon found room for improvement -- but it AIN'T a dog. I've shot 1,000's of images (FF and crop) with my copy of that lens and never complained about lack of IQ out of that glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjb Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 BTW Charles M, I`d like to ask, which alternative lens have you been using, considering your pet hate of the current 16 35.? and what type of work has it failed you? Thanx :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbizarro Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 "Well it looks like at least Canon agreed with me, even if the zealots here did not. Always nice to be right...(or at least, for a change)..." Good for you, I am sure that your photos will improve immensely with the new lens. I am sure that the quality of the photos you took with the 16-35 was poor due to the poor quality of the lens, not because of your own limitations as a photographer. I suggest you keep sending your wisdom the Canon way, perhaps they will keep listening to you and improve all their dog lenses; we would benefit a lot I am sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_pertchik1 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Ha, a lot of resistance here... Charles, you were right, the 16-35 needed improvement for some usesr's criteria. Not that it wasn't pretty great, but I chose the 17-40 because it's sharper on the wide end, and I didn't need the 2.8 speed, for which the 16-35 excelled. Now that a mk II 16-35 with better corner sharpness will probably materialize, I'll be upgrading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savas_kyprianides Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 What a vindication! Charles must have freaked when he learned of Canon's new development, gone went and dusted off those old threads and now parading them around! Hallelujah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Savas, LOL! You win POW (Post Of the Week). :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 "Ha, a lot of resistance here... Charles, you were right, the 16-35 needed improvement for some usesr's criteria. Not that it wasn't pretty great, but I chose the 17-40 because it's sharper on the wide end, and I didn't need the 2.8 speed, for which the 16-35 excelled. Now that a mk II 16-35 with better corner sharpness will probably materialize, I'll be upgrading." Yes that is my feeling. There is always an group of folks that hate you if you don't think one of their lenses is the best thing since sliced bread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_mason Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share Posted February 24, 2007 Yeah Lester, this was fun to watch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Charles, do you own the 16-35? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_mason Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share Posted February 24, 2007 Gampi, As I noted, I have a 16-35, access to seven of them, and a 17-40. The 17-40, at half the price (and f/stop), is a much better lens. Not nearly perfect, but a lot better in the corners than the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjb Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Charles, I`m interested to know what type of photo work the 16 35 has failed you so badly? Is it both film and digital, I would expect maybe a lil loss in corners of FF digital because of the flat sensor, I`ve never heard of it being this bad from any other sourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awindsor Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 They also upgrades the Canon 1D. Pity the poor soul owning the 1DII since, by the same logic, it must be a dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now