Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon 16-35/2.8 L II  (Read 10120 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5665
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« on: February 22, 2007, 01:43:46 PM »

I am surprised that Canon has finally announced a lens much asked for in this forum, a new version of the 16-35/2.8 L and yet I see no discussion of it yet. To be fair, Canon buries comment on it in the 1DMkIII white paper, page 56:
"This is a high performance L-series lens, specifically designed for improved peripheral image quality in wide-angle shots that will meet the strict requirements of professional and high-end amateurs more successfully than it predecessor."

It seems to me that this is the sort of new, better lens that Canon has been talking about, not lenses requiring a new lens mount, or designed for a larger format, or in any way incompatible with existing EOS bodies.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 01:44:46 PM by BJL »
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2007, 02:00:56 PM »

It sounds great except for one *major* issue -- if I read the release correctly, the new 16-35 uses 82mm filters...
Logged

jd1566

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2007, 03:05:15 PM »

To Canon's credit they seem to have replied to just about every major wish list out there on EOS equipment.  A decent wide angle lens, dedicated ISO button, better camera interface, lighter longer lasting battery.  Throw in the unexpected 14 bit capture capability and this announcement has really shaken the camera world.  Even as a 5D user totally taken by my full frame.. I find myself lusting after this camera (and the new lens, despite it's 82mm filter thread).. Whoever thinks 82mm thread is bad is a plain idiot.. It's 82mm so the filter doesn't interfere with the corner sharpness.. SO WHAT.  If this lens is as sharp in the corners as the Marketing Blurb from Canon says it is.. well, then we will all learn to live with the 82mm thread.. GET OVER IT.  In the end it's the image quality.. Sigma has been making lenses with 82mm thread mounts for ages..

Overalll my hat off to Canon, they have really surpised me pleasantly.. Pity that 20 year anniversaries only come around every... 20 years!  We expect more from you this year though Canon, do not sit on your laurels.. The 1DsIII still needs a makeover, as do the 30D and eventually even the 5D.  Can you manage that in one year? Oh, plus the extra lenses.... :-)
Logged
B&W photographer - Still lifes, Portraits, Urban scenes, Landscapes, Abstract images.

ddolde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 438
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2007, 03:18:43 PM »

Why is an 82mm filter a problem?  Lee makes an 82mm wide angle adapter ring !
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1555
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2007, 04:04:52 PM »

I am with Doug. I could care less about the filter size if it actually solves many of the problems that haunted similar Canon lenses before. Of the recent announcements this is the only item I am likely to buy. When some of the new body tech makes it into a FF camera, I am likely to upgrade the camera at that time.
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM
LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9756
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2007, 05:22:39 PM »

So it would seem that Canon FF had a wide angle problem then...

Both the 1dIII and the new lens are interesting developments. My list of show stoppers with the Canon bodies is shortening quick, I'll really consider the 1dsIII when it is released.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

MarkKay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 587
    • http://markkayphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1305161
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2007, 05:46:50 PM »

From the announcements to date for this PMA anyway, this lens seems to be potentially the best news.  I would love to see some comparisons with the version I using the 5D or 1DsmkII.  I think once those comparisons are reported on, there will be more discussion.  In regards to the filter size, I have a B+W 95mm polarizer and guess I can get an step adapter. Mark


Quote
I am surprised that Canon has finally announced a lens much asked for in this forum, a new version of the 16-35/2.8 L and yet I see no discussion of it yet. To be fair, Canon buries comment on it in the 1DMkIII white paper, page 56:
"This is a high performance L-series lens, specifically designed for improved peripheral image quality in wide-angle shots that will meet the strict requirements of professional and high-end amateurs more successfully than it predecessor."

It seems to me that this is the sort of new, better lens that Canon has been talking about, not lenses requiring a new lens mount, or designed for a larger format, or in any way incompatible with existing EOS bodies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102404\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2007, 09:23:36 PM »

If this new 16-35 significantly outperforms the Sigma 15-30, I'll consider getting it. The Sigma needs an 82mm filter which, unfortunately, causes some vignetting in the corners even with an APS-C sensor. Use of a filter in front of the lens is not possible with full frame without severe vignetting all round.
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1620
    • yet
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2007, 10:12:24 PM »

Quote
So it would seem that Canon FF had a wide angle problem then...
At least with the 16-35mm zoom lens.
Logged
Jan

Marsupilami

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 75
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2007, 02:30:21 AM »

And with the 17-40 L Lens too
Logged

Danijela D. Karic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 221
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2007, 06:31:41 AM »

Is the new 1DsIII going cheaper then 5D. Estimated price anyone?

Regards
Danijela
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1620
    • yet
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2007, 06:59:16 AM »

Quote
Is the new 1DsIII going cheaper then 5D. Estimated price anyone?
Nobody knows yet, details about the camera have not been leaked.

But here's a good hint: the new 1D Mk III is more expensive than the current 5D. The current 1Ds Mk II is significantly more expensive to manufacture, and carries a significantly higher price.
Logged
Jan

Danijela D. Karic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 221
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2007, 09:53:15 AM »

Quote
Nobody knows yet, details about the camera have not been leaked.

But here's a good hint: the new 1D Mk III is more expensive than the current 5D. The current 1Ds Mk II is significantly more expensive to manufacture, and carries a significantly higher price.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do you think Canon came with so many models not significantly different from each other with respect to their performance.

EOS-5D
EOS-1D Mark II N
EOS-1D Mk III


Regards
Danijela
Logged

madmanchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2110
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2007, 10:12:02 AM »

Quote
Why do you think Canon came with so many models not significantly different from each other with respect to their performance.

EOS-5D
EOS-1D Mark II N
EOS-1D Mk III
Regards
Danijela
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 1D III is expected to have an initial street price of $3999, though this may change. See here: [a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp[/url]

Or see the Canon White Paper here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/C...White_Paper.pdf

These cameras listed above are very different. First of all, the 5D is a full-frame sensor camera and is significantly smaller than the 1-series cameras. It shoots more slowly (3 fps) and has a smaller burst count. It has a less sophisticated autofocus system. It is targeted for photographers who don't need the ultra-fast responsiveness, burst rate, or autofocusing capabilities of the 1D series. The 5D might be well suited for hiking landscape photographers, studio portraits, etc.

The 1D series cameras are 1.3x cropped sensor cameras and are built more ruggedly. They are also bigger and heavier. They shoot at high rates, have big buffers to store more images in a burst, and have more sophisticated autofocus systems. They are targeted for photographers who need this level of high responsiveness and high framerate, such as sports photographers, photojournalists, event photographers who need to capture a fleeting moment at peak action. Very different market, very different capabilities.

As for how the 1D III is different than the 1D II, look at the white paper or the review sites. The main differences are listed. If the differences don't seem significant to you, then you might as well use the 1D II.

For me, however, on paper at least, the 1D III is a big step up.
Logged

ricciardi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2007, 01:47:22 PM »

Are we allowed to advertise our gear here?

I see you guys talking about 82mm filters and I have a condition A+ 82mm filter to sell.

Can we talk about it here?

Nelson
Logged

Danijela D. Karic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 221
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2007, 02:46:22 AM »

Quote
The 1D III is expected to have an initial street price of $3999, though this may change. See here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp

Or see the Canon White Paper here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/C...White_Paper.pdf
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not bad

Quote
The 1D III is expected to have an initial street price of $3999, though this may change. See here: [a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp[/url]

Or see the Canon White Paper here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/C...White_Paper.pdf

These cameras listed above are very different. First of all, the 5D is a full-frame sensor camera and is significantly smaller than the 1-series cameras. It shoots more slowly (3 fps) and has a smaller burst count. It has a less sophisticated autofocus system. It is targeted for photographers who don't need the ultra-fast responsiveness, burst rate, or autofocusing capabilities of the 1D series. The 5D might be well suited for hiking landscape photographers, studio portraits, etc.

The 1D series cameras are 1.3x cropped sensor cameras and are built more ruggedly. They are also bigger and heavier. They shoot at high rates, have big buffers to store more images in a burst, and have more sophisticated autofocus systems. They are targeted for photographers who need this level of high responsiveness and high framerate, such as sports photographers, photojournalists, event photographers who need to capture a fleeting moment at peak action. Very different market, very different capabilities.

As for how the 1D III is different than the 1D II, look at the white paper or the review sites. The main differences are listed. If the differences don't seem significant to you, then you might as well use the 1D II.

For me, however, on paper at least, the 1D III is a big step up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Based on 1D III, Is there anything else that tells you what will be improved when the
next 22/24mp arrives?

Regards
Danijela
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2007, 10:10:24 AM »

Quote
Why is an 82mm filter a problem? Lee makes an 82mm wide angle adapter ring !
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Different strokes...   Because for me the current version of the lens is already ridiculously large for a wide zoom and even more so with the hood attached.  Requiring 82mm filters is an indication that this new version is even larger and heavier than its predecessor.

Size is important ,
« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 10:10:51 AM by Jack Flesher »
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1620
    • yet
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2007, 10:44:56 AM »

Quote
Different strokes...   Because for me the current version of the lens is already ridiculously large for a wide zoom and even more so with the hood attached.  Requiring 82mm filters is an indication that this new version is even larger and heavier than its predecessor.
Yes, the difference is enormous.

A whopping 35g (1.2 oz).

The 5mm extra filter diameter is reflected in the width of the lens of course, and it's also 8.6mm longer.

Other improvements than the greater diameter include ring-type USM, or "real USM" as some people like to call it.

Have a look at Canon's product comparison for a summary of the differences.

One difference that isn't mentioned there, but which is apparent from Norwegian resellers, is the 30% price premium of the new lens.
Logged
Jan

MarkKay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 587
    • http://markkayphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1305161
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2007, 02:53:43 PM »

I am very interested to see some real life comparisons between the I and II versions of this lens.  I also have some concerns about the QC.... I had compared 3 different 16-35mm lenses and observed substantial differences in the optics.  The one I have now is decent from 16 to 24mm but others i tested were better at the 20s to 35mm focal range.  I hope the QC is better on  the new models

Quote
Yes, the difference is enormous.

A whopping 35g (1.2 oz).

The 5mm extra filter diameter is reflected in the width of the lens of course, and it's also 8.6mm longer.

Other improvements than the greater diameter include ring-type USM, or "real USM" as some people like to call it.

Have a look at Canon's product comparison for a summary of the differences.

One difference that isn't mentioned there, but which is apparent from Norwegian resellers, is the 30% price premium of the new lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 701
    • http://www.twigwater.com
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2007, 04:39:17 AM »

Mine is as sharp as the day is long except at 35mm as well Mark, maybe they were made on the same day ?  

I look forward to getting my hands on the new lens for a test..
Logged
www.twigwater.com My fly fishing blog.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up