Recent Canon wide angles- where are the tests?

[NigelC]

With recent eulogising over newer Nikon lenses, well specifically the 14-24, and unfavourable comparison of Canon wide zooms and primes, I haven't seen much information on the recent Canon releases, particularly the 16-35 Mk2 and the 24/1.4 mk2. The issue for me is not whether the the Nikon 14-24 is better than the Canon 16-35 Mk2 (after all the Nikon won't fit on a Canon body and I personally find it a bit unwieldy), but whether the 16-35 is now getting most of the potential of the 21Mp sensor. Haven't seen anything at all about the new 24 mm.

[Geoff Wittig]

With recent eulogising over newer Nikon lenses, well specifically the 14-24, and unfavourable comparison of Canon wide zooms and primes, I haven't seen much information on the recent Canon releases, particularly the 16-35 Mk2 and the 24/1.4 mk2. The issue for me is not whether the the Nikon 14-24 is better than the Canon 16-35 Mk2 (after all the Nikon won't fit on a Canon body and I personally find it a bit unwieldy), but whether the 16-35 is now getting most of the potential of the 21Mp sensor. Haven't seen anything at all about the new 24 mm.

I'm not sure if the new fast 24 mm has been released yet. There are a number of decently thorough reviews of the 16-35mm f:2.8 II lens around, which generally indicate that it's better than the previous version in the corners, but still rather soft in the corners wide-open and not really up to the demands of the 21 megapixel sensors.

For what it's worth, I have the original 16-35 f:2.8 and find it pretty good if it's stopped down to about f:8, but no question the corner distortion and color fringing are there to see, which requires a lot of post-processing to make it tolerable. Nowadays I'm much more likely to go with the 24-70 f:2.8 which is optically very good, and stitch frames for a wider perspective when needed.

[jani]

I occasionally visit Mark Welsh's lens test page to see when he's gotten around to testing them. There's no test with the new 24mm from Canon yet.

[jeffok]

With recent eulogising over newer Nikon lenses, well specifically the 14-24, and unfavourable comparison of Canon wide zooms and primes, I haven't seen much information on the recent Canon releases, particularly the 16-35 Mk2 and the 24/1.4 mk2. The issue for me is not whether the the Nikon 14-24 is better than the Canon 16-35 Mk2 (after all the Nikon won't fit on a Canon body and I personally find it a bit unwieldy), but whether the 16-35 is now getting most of the potential of the 21Mp sensor. Haven't seen anything at all about the new 24 mm.

There are a few reviews, though not many. Photozone has one and 16:9 did one a while ago.
I have a 1Ds3 and the 16-35 II, among others. Overall, this is an excellent lens and well up to the task of the 21 MP sensor IMHO. I find that files from this lens sharpen up nicely and it has excellent contrast. No question, it is a bit soft in the corners wide open, but then so are many other wide angle zooms. Stopped down a bit it is very sharp at all apertures. Is it perfect? No, but personally, if you're a Canon shooter, I would highly recomment it as well as the 35L which is even better.

[geotzo]

I'm not sure if the new fast 24 mm has been released yet...

Here is a short review on these lens, but it seems a bit dissapointing in terms of sharpness as he says. I was hoping for something similar to my 35mmL sharp-wise
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx

[phila]

New 24f1.4L II review:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/1229/cat/10

[budjames]

You will find a test of the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L MkII at this link: Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkII Test

I sold my original Canon 16-35 on eBay and purchased the new MkII model. All I can say is WOW!!!

The quality difference, even wide open, is amazingly better. I've shot images with my 1DsMkIII and 40D and they are much improved. Even the barrel distortion is much better controlled in the new version.

I'm very pleased with the upgrade and I look forward to taking this lens on my family vacation this year.

Cheers.
Bud James

[NigelC]

You will find a test of the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L MkII at this link: Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkII Test

I sold my original Canon 16-35 on eBay and purchased the new MkII model. All I can say is WOW!!!

The quality difference, even wide open, is amazingly better. I've shot images with my 1DsMkIII and 40D and they are much improved. Even the barrel distortion is much better controlled in the new version.

I'm very pleased with the upgrade and I look forward to taking this lens on my family vacation this year.

Cheers.
Bud James

That sounds good - I've actually got the 17-40 which I find very good, but then I usually have it stopped own quite a bit, which is of course something you don't have to worry about with 5D Mk1, diffraction wise. ( the 5D is my first and only DSLR, so its good not to have to change my thinking much from its T90 predecessor).

[David Anderson]

The 16-35 II is a much sharper lens than the mk I IMHO, the corners could still be better, but for a zoom it's very good on the DsIII.

The center is very very sharp on mine by f4 and still very good wide open.

One thing I think Canon need is some new, cheaper & lighter wides - replacements for the 35 f2 and 24 2.8 - it would be easier to carry around thne the fast primes when you don't need
to shoot at 1.4

[JonRoemer]

The 16-35 II is a much sharper lens than the mk I IMHO, the corners could still be better, but for a zoom it's very good on the DsIII.

The center is very very sharp on mine by f4 and still very good wide open.

I've found that the 16-35 Mark II lens does fine on the 1DsM3 and better than the Mark I version if one takes the time to double check the focus (I've used two 16-35 Mark II's, they both needed a micro adjustment) and also if you don't go wider than ~20mm.  Wider than 20mm the corners and edges (short edges) can still get a bit funky.  In comparison, the Mark I version of the 16-35 looked fine on my 1DsM2 and earlier bodies but couldn't cut it on the 1DsM3.

Here's a blog entry I wrote on this.

[DaveCurtis]

I'm using the lens on the 1DS3 and find it to be the best wide angle Canon zoom I've used. I'm using it primarily for landscape photography so resolution and performance in the outer most zone of the image is most important.

I must say when printing at A2 and above the lens still could be improved on even when stopped down to f8-11 The center of the image is very sharp but there is a noticeably decrease in sharpness at the images edges.

My clients don't seem to notice this but I do!

I'm hoping that Canon can produce something that can equal Nikon's 14-24 when it comes to edge sharpness.

Dave

[JohnKoerner]

How come nobody mentions the Canon 14mm f2.8?

I am just shopping wides at the moment, and it seems to me that all of the consumer (mostly pro) reviews indicate the 14mm f2.8 blows the 16-35mm f/2.8L II away and rivals the Nikkor 14-24. Any truth to this?

Also, the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 has got some pretty rave reviews on the 50D ...

[DaveCurtis]

Check this out: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24...n14_24mm_a.html

Yes, you are correct the 14mm is very good. It lies somewhere between the two zooms.

[budjames]

I had the Canon 17-35 f2.8 L, then sold it years ago to buy the original the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L. I've used these lenses on the EOS 1VHS, 10D, 20D, 1DMkII, 1DsMkII and now on my current FF body, the 1DsMkIII. I have many quality images in my portfolio captured with these various combinations.

I just sold the 16-35 and upgraded to the Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkII L a few weeks ago. I also purchased the Canon 10-22 for my 20D (now 40D).

By far, in the short time that I have owned it, the 16-35 MkII is the best lens of the bunch, but it's big and heavy. I prefer the 10-22 on my 40D because it's almost as good, but more importantly it's a true wide angle for the smaller sensor and it's much more compact, lighter and handles better on the 40D body IMHO.

Quite frankly, at this level of quality bodies and lenses, the person makes the bigger difference in the quality of the photography than the equipment.

Now if Canon would only come up with a more compact, lighter and faster replacement, without the push-pull design, for my 7 year old 100-400 IS L lens, I'd be a happy camper.

Cheers.
Bud James
North Wales, PA

[JohnKoerner]

Check this out: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24...n14_24mm_a.html

Yes, you are correct the 14mm is very good. It lies somewhere between the two zooms.

Thanks Dave;

In some instances it looks like the Nikon 14-24 gets the nod (Zone C at f5), while in others the Canon 14 gets the nod (Zone A at f13).

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_n...anon14l2_a.html



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I had the Canon 17-35 f2.8 L, then sold it years ago to buy the original the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L. I've used these lenses on the EOS 1VHS, 10D, 20D, 1DMkII, 1DsMkII and now on my current FF body, the 1DsMkIII. I have many quality images in my portfolio captured with these various combinations.
I just sold the 16-35 and upgraded to the Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkII L a few weeks ago. I also purchased the Canon 10-22 for my 20D (now 40D).
By far, in the short time that I have owned it, the 16-35 MkII is the best lens of the bunch, but it's big and heavy. I prefer the 10-22 on my 40D because it's almost as good, but more importantly it's a true wide angle for the smaller sensor and it's much more compact, lighter and handles better on the 40D body IMHO.
Quite frankly, at this level of quality bodies and lenses, the person makes the bigger difference in the quality of the photography than the equipment.
Now if Canon would only come up with a more compact, lighter and faster replacement, without the push-pull design, for my 7 year old 100-400 IS L lens, I'd be a happy camper.
Cheers.
Bud James
North Wales, PA

Thanks Bud;

There has been a lot of positive feedback on the 10-22, and I have seen mostly good on the EF 16-35 f/2.8 II , but not a lot of people here have talked about the EF 14mm f/2.8L II. But as I have been scrolling through the feedback on B&H, it is a $2000 lens, and everybody seems to put it over any of the lenses mentioned here;

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...orToReadReviews

I was just wondering if any of the boardmembers have experienced this lens first-hand.

Jack

[Josh-H]

The Digital Picturehas now posted their full review of the new 24mm F1.4L MKII 24mm F1.4L MKII Review - quote "The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens is, without question, Canon's best-performing (optically and physically) and best-built 24mm lens. If you want the best Canon 24mm lens, look no longer. This is it."

Suffice to say I placed an order for one this morning, along with the 14mm L MKII and am selling my 16-35mm F2.8L MKI

[DaveCurtis]

The Digital Picturehas now posted their full review of the new 24mm F1.4L MKII 24mm F1.4L MKII Review - quote "The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens is, without question, Canon's best-performing (optically and physically) and best-built 24mm lens. If you want the best Canon 24mm lens, look no longer. This is it."

Suffice to say I placed an order for one this morning, along with the 14mm L MKII and am selling my 16-35mm F2.8L MKI

Review looks rather impressive. Perhaps Canon could use the same technology and produce a 16-35mm F2.8L MKIII.