16-35 mk1 vs mk2 tests?

[matt_m__toronto_]

<p>after googling and reading, i'm curious to see some comparison shots between the two lenses? from what i've read the mk2 is slightly sharper at the edges. i'm not a meticulous landscape shooter, so it wouldn't bother me too much if the only significant difference was a bit of corner softness.<br>

is $1100 cdn ($908 usd) a fair price to pay for a mk1?</p>

[christopher_blumenshine]

<p>Are you talking 5D? If so, yes, that's a fair price.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I agree a 16-35 "mark I" in good to great condition for $USA 908 is a Good Deal.<br>

Also, obviously, if you don't have a FF camera then edge performance is immaterial.</p>

 

[matt_m__toronto_]

<p>christopher...if we weren't talking 5d would it not be a good price?<br>

yes i'm shooting with a 5d2. apart from some corner softness, anything else to keep one away from a mk1 version?<br>

any comparison shots online?</p>

[zml]

<p>You can compare the ISO 12233 charts crops of these two lenses <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx">here</a>.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I cannot show you samples from both lenses, but I recall reading in several places that the 16-35 II has somewhat better corners <em>at</em> f/2.8 but that its performance is no better at smaller apertures.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I tried the mark 1 of the 16-35 f2.8 about 3 years ago and was not very impressed - I ended up buying the 17-40 F4 which was just as good and a lot cheaper. I only shoot full frame and often use film so I did miss the F2.8 aperture with the 17-40 but found the 16-35 very soft at the edges - although it may have been the example I tested. I have recently sold the 17-40 and bough the 16-35 mark II. The Mark II was definately superior to the mark I (as I remember the Mark I) and I am very happy with it. I paid US $1350 as there was a $100 saving on them just after Christmas but they are now $1450 for a new US warrenty version. At $900 for the Mark I that may not be a bad deal and if you do not use full frame, or shoot wide open the differences to the mark II will be small. You may also want to consider the 17-40 f4 especially if you only shoot digital.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Michael L.'s reference is a very good source for comparison. Here's the specific page comparing the two lens with both wide open at 16mm. You mouse-over to compare, and you can change the apertures and focal lengths.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=114">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=114</a></p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I have seen mistakes on these internet lens testing sites, so take what you see with a grain of salt. I suspect that real world differences between these two lenses would be negligible. </p>

<p>That is a fair price, as in typical price, not a good price. If it is from a Toronto retailer it is the best you will find from a retailer and your peace of mind may make it worthwhile. $750 to $800 USD would be a good price. Another lens to consider is the previous 17-35mm f2.8 L. Usually available for $500 - $700 USD.</p>

<p>If you have not had an ultrawide before I am sure you will enjoy the experience, but it does take some getting used to. At least you will have a good range to work with. Good luck.</p>