Canon 16-35mm Mark II

[phangcht]

Any review that compares 16-35mm Mark I and Mark II? If you have tried the Mark II version(or even the Mark I), let me know your comments, especially on FF, ie on IQ, vignetting, CA & etc. Thanks

[mebailey]

I have the mark II version of the lens that I use on a 5D. Iam very pleased with the IQ at all fs and FLs. Vignetting is visible at 16mm and f2.8 but is apparently better than the old lens. I have not noticed any significant CA. I have not directly compared with the old lens since I dont have one. Here is a review of someone who did.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
The price the two lenses has crept closer so I see no real reason to purchase the older model.

[ipacmm]

I have used both on a FF body and I really like the Mark II, for me it is a lot sharper then the Mark I version. I have the Mark II for rent if you want to try it out.

[Tom W]

I owned the Mk 1 for a couple of years. Good lens, but it really wanted to be stopped down a good deal for shots where sharpness was important towards the corners on my 5D.

The Mk 2 is a significant improvement in terms of sharpness at wide apertures. While both are sharp at the center at f/2.8, the Mk 2's region of sharpness extends well away from the center wide open. In my opinion, it performs at f/2.8 in a manner similar to the Mk 1 at f/5.6. The difference diminishes as you stop down, but if you want to use the wide angle at wider apertures, the Mk 2 is superior.

Flare control is much better on the Mk 2 as well. In my observation, the Mk 2 is close in performance to the 17-40, which really controls flare well for an ultra-wide.

[phangcht]

I really love the flexibility of F2.8 vs F4; obviously the price sets them apart. Indoor/ low light shootings are whole lot better with the 16-35 at F2.8. Sound like a good lens to keep :)

[SunTsu]

I have the mark II version of the lens that I use on a 5D. Iam very pleased with the IQ at all fs and FLs. Vignetting is visible at 16mm and f2.8 but is apparently better than the old lens. I have not noticed any significant CA. I have not directly compared with the old lens since I dont have one. Here is a review of someone who did.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
The price the two lenses has crept closer so I see no real reason to purchase the older model.

The cheapest I've seen the MkII it is about $1449. I'm wondering if anyone has seen it cheaper. :)

[mebailey]

The cheapest I've seen the MkII it is about $1449. I'm wondering if anyone has seen it cheaper. :)

That is the best Ive seen too.

[Longwatcher]

I still own the 16-35/2.8L MkI, but had the opportunity to play with the MkII for about an hour recently. The MkII is a significant improvement and as soon as my budget (which is very tight right now) allows I will be upgrading that lens.
I have never really paid that much attention to vignetting/light fall off, since I shoot a lot of portraits and for me it is a feature not a limitation, but the number one annoyance with the Mk-I was flare and it mostly goes bye-bye with the Mk-II in conditions that would have ruined a shot with the Mk-I. That by itself made it to my want list. Plus it looks to be better in other areas as well from the brief session i had with the lens.

[ItsMike]

I never used a Mark I but I did "Borrow" the Mark II from my local Camera shop and it was Nice.. Not worth the $1599 price tag it came with though.. Other than the Extra stops.. I will take my 17-40 over it..

(I just put on my flame suit :))

[nino_zeke]

i like flamesuits :D

Tom W? you said "the Mk 2 is close in performance to the 17-40" so the 17-40 is slightly better? did i get that right? (sorry none english native)

sayonara
zeke

[Roger Cicala]

I moved from the Mark I to the Mark II and see a huge difference in edges and corners, not so much at the center. Also would point out that the difference is huge on my 5D and 1DsII, not much on 30D/XTi. I wouldn't bother with the upgrade on a crop camera, and if I shot mostly weddings or portraits (even on a full frame), again, not sure the edge and corner difference would be worth it.

But for architectural or landscape shots on a full frame camera, that extra sharpness is worth every single penny to me. I'm one of those that used a Zeiss 21 Distagon on an adapter to get edge shaprness on FF cameras. The Mark II isn't as sharp as the Zeiss, but its a LOT closer than the Mark I version. Couple of samples (feel free to download and pixel peep) at

https://www.lensrentals.com/sample-picture/atxvdjnq3akh.jpg (this one downloads 100% I believe)
https://www.lensrentals.com/sample-picture/bat799bu9wss.jpg (this one is 50%)

[Steve Beck]

I never used a Mark I but I did "Borrow" the Mark II from my local Camera shop and it was Nice.. Not worth the $1599 price tag it came with though.. Other than the Extra stops.. I will take my 17-40 over it..

(I just put on my flame suit :))


If you have a real use for the extra mm and the f2.8 speed then it is worth it. If you have no real use for f2.8 then no it isnt..

[Tom W]

i like flamesuits :D

Tom W? you said "the Mk 2 is close in performance to the 17-40" so the 17-40 is slightly better? did i get that right? (sorry none english native)

sayonara
zeke

I was speaking in terms of flare only. What I was saying is that they perform about the same in this regard. I haven't had my 17-40 for 2-3 years so I cannot do a direct comparison. But I am equally impressed with the flare control on the new 16-35 Mk II as I was on my 17-40. They are both good.

[nino_zeke]

thanks Tom!

[phangcht]

The f2.8 is sure useful for indoor and night shoots. This lens does not come with IS, cranking up the Tv will help alot.

[MDJAK]

Flame suit activated:

I want to know why no one is up in arms over the FACT that the Mark II is NOT quite as wide as the Mark I at a supposed 16mm, and that is what is contributing to edge sharpness more than anything else.

me

[cdifoto]

The f2.8 is sure useful for indoor and night shoots. This lens does not come with IS, cranking up the Tv will help alot.

My TV has crappy speakers. It distorts when I crank it up. :confused:

[cdifoto]

Flame suit activated:

I want to know why no one is up in arms over the FACT that the Mark II is NOT quite as wide as the Mark I at a supposed 16mm, and that is what is contributing to edge sharpness more than anything else.

me

Got a reputable link for this, or are you just making it up, despite calling it fact? I haven't seen anything about this, but then I haven't been looking for info on this lens either.

[cdhender]

Flame suit activated:

I want to know why no one is up in arms over the FACT that the Mark II is NOT quite as wide as the Mark I at a supposed 16mm, and that is what is contributing to edge sharpness more than anything else.

me

I believe this is because the Mark II is a LONGER lens. The body is bigger than the MK I which means it's going to be just slightly narrower at 16mm.

[Tom W]

Flame suit activated:

I want to know why no one is up in arms over the FACT that the Mark II is NOT quite as wide as the Mark I at a supposed 16mm, and that is what is contributing to edge sharpness more than anything else.

me


Looking back at my comparison images, I can see no real difference in coverage at 16 mm. If there's any, it's very minute, within a half mm of focal length. Most of the edge sharpness is due to a new optical design - one that apparently required an 82 mm filter thread instead of 77 mm.

I'm pleased with the new one especially on the 5D because I don't feel like I need to shoot at f/11 when I use the wide end of the zoom any more. That and the flare issue is resolved (no pun intended). :)

[MDJAK]

Got a reputable link for this, or are you just making it up, despite calling it fact? I haven't seen anything about this, but then I haven't been looking for info on this lens either.


Are you doubting my word? I don't blame you, I doubt myself sometimes.

If I'm not mistaken it was testing done by Josh (aerosmith). I'll have a look-see.

me

[AeroSmith]

http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/gallery/2670394#141347562

EDIT: I guess I should say that the mark I does seem to be a touch wider at 16mm.

[Tom W]

I see that, Josh. Perhaps just a touch.

[cdifoto]

I couldn't tell.

[Tom W]

If you compare the two by switching back and forth (in the first series of shots) between the lenses, the Mk I has just a tiny bit more in view along the edges than the Mk II. Very small, and rather insignificant - less than the difference between 16 and 17 mm IMHO.

[sabesh]

Is it true that the Mk.II version goes soft between 24-35mm? More than one person has reported this via Amazon reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B000NP46K2/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/104-1452610-1006305?ie=UTF8&n=502394#customerReviews

I'm thinking of purchasing one and am a bit worried after reading this. Cheers.

[mebailey]

Is it true that the Mk.II version goes soft between 24-35mm? More than one person has reported this via Amazon reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B000NP46K2/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/104-1452610-1006305?ie=UTF8&n=502394#customerReviews

I'm thinking of purchasing one and am a bit worried after reading this. Cheers.

Read this expert review and you will buy it tomorrow.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1635ii_a/c1635ii_a1.html

My lens never goes soft at any focal length. I think a point many have made is it is a dramatic improvement over the older lens and the 17-40 at the wide end and it holds it own with the other two at the long end. It is not as sharp as the 24-70 at 35mm. But you have to remember its an ultrawide zoom. Its not going to be able to compete with wide or normal zoom at the long end.

[sabesh]

mebailey: Thx for the link. A very detailed and useful review.


Anyone using clear or UV filters with this lens? I take it that they have to be the slim variety to control vignetting? If so, which brand/model are you using? Thx.

[Tom W]

Read this expert review and you will buy it tomorrow.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1635ii_a/c1635ii_a1.html

While the 16-9.net reviews are very good, I'd not quite raise them to the level of "expert". He does show his work, which is great, but he also boils things down to a subjective number rating rather than measurements.

I'm not discounting his reviews, but I think it's good to consider the subjective side of his conclusions. As always, it's best to acquire information from as many resources as possible, 16-9 being one of them.

My lens never goes soft at any focal length. I think a point many have made is it is a dramatic improvement over the older lens and the 17-40 at the wide end and it holds it own with the other two at the long end. It is not as sharp as the 24-70 at 35mm. But you have to remember its an ultrawide zoom. Its not going to be able to compete with wide or normal zoom at the long end.

My experience agrees with yours - it's wonderful at the wide end, and still very good up to 35 mm, but the 24-70 gains a small advantage towards the 35 mm end. Which is OK, since I bought the 16-35 II for use at the wide end, not to replace the workhorse 24-70.

[mebailey]

mebailey: Thx for the link. A very detailed and useful review.


Anyone using clear or UV filters with this lens? I take it that they have to be the slim variety to control vignetting? If so, which brand/model are you using? Thx.

I use a regular thickness Hoya Super Multi-Coated UV filter with no additional vignetting that I can detect. I believe the new wider lens barrel at the filter end and the 82mm filter allows full thickness filters (at least one at a time) to be used without obstruction at the wide end. This is my own conclusion but there are others who found this as well.

[mebailey]

While the 16-9.net reviews are very good, I'd not quite raise them to the level of "expert". He does show his work, which is great, but he also boils things down to a subjective number rating rather than measurements.

I'm not discounting his reviews, but I think it's good to consider the subjective side of his conclusions. As always, it's best to acquire information from as many resources as possible, 16-9 being one of them.

I think Hubsand's reviews (16:9) are very good too. Perhaps not the most expert available but certainly light years ahead of that drivel on the Amazon site. :lol::lol:

Tom is right to suggest acquiring as much information as possible before making a decision. Not the least of which is trying the lens yourself before committing to keeping it. IOW buy from a reliable merchant that will grant returns for merchandise that performs less than expected!

I have my own little lens torture course that I put new aquisitions through before the return period expires...

[Indecent Exposure]

That review just sold me. Impressive stuff. Expert or not, he told me everything I wanted to know and backed up his findings the way I would want conclusions backed up.

[mebailey]

That review just sold me. Impressive stuff. Expert or not, he told me everything I wanted to know and backed up his findings the way I would want conclusions backed up.

You might want to check out FM (if you have not already). The peer reviews posted there are also a "cut above" the customer reviews on a sales site, imo.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=313&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

[sabesh]

Does anyone use the supplied hood with Mk.II? (EW-88). The hood appears so shallow that it doesn't look like it can prevent much flare.

I just got this lens and am liking it very much. I plan to take this on a trip and leave behind the hood if it's really not that critical. Thx.

(I figured I'll post in this old thread just to consolidate data in one place).

[BugEyes]

I had one for lent over a weekend and decided I did not want one.
I found it marginally better than 17-40 when it comes to vignetting and no better at all refarding barrel distorsion. I had expected straight lines and no or little vignetting for that price.

I was dissapionted by it's performance.

[ed rader]

I moved from the Mark I to the Mark II and see a huge difference in edges and corners, not so much at the center. Also would point out that the difference is huge on my 5D and 1DsII, not much on 30D/XTi. I wouldn't bother with the upgrade on a crop camera, and if I shot mostly weddings or portraits (even on a full frame), again, not sure the edge and corner difference would be worth it.

But for architectural or landscape shots on a full frame camera, that extra sharpness is worth every single penny to me. I'm one of those that used a Zeiss 21 Distagon on an adapter to get edge shaprness on FF cameras. The Mark II isn't as sharp as the Zeiss, but its a LOT closer than the Mark I version. Couple of samples (feel free to download and pixel peep) at

https://www.lensrentals.com/sample-picture/atxvdjnq3akh.jpg (this one downloads 100% I believe)
https://www.lensrentals.com/sample-picture/bat799bu9wss.jpg (this one is 50%)


Roger -- thanx. i always appreciate your insight on lenses :D.

ed rader

[MDJAK]

Does anyone use the supplied hood with Mk.II? (EW-88). The hood appears so shallow that it doesn't look like it can prevent much flare.

I just got this lens and am liking it very much. I plan to take this on a trip and leave behind the hood if it's really not that critical. Thx.

(I figured I'll post in this old thread just to consolidate data in one place).

the hood has to be designed the way it is or it would show itself in the picture.

I guess if you're careful about stray light, and perhaps hold your hand or even a hat above the lens when shooting, you can leave the hood at home.

But I don't like to use filters, and so the hood is the lens's first defense against bumping, etc.
mark

[sabesh]

MDJAK:

Thx. I did some tests today. Flare is not absent, but well controlled throughout the Focal range. I'll leave the hood behind and just use my hand as you suggest (if need be). I use filters, so I'm not worried about dinging the front element, which projects a bit.

Cheers,

Sabesh.