Not again! 16-35L 2.8

[Dante King]

Damn you Drisley! I didnt get any tea out of the deal but I did pick up a 16-35L 2.8 for the bag just a few moments ago. Seeing the pics of this lens on the forums and feedback from owners, I had to jump. Cant wait to put this lens thru the trials. I am now considerably poorer and its all due to Drisley..LOL Got to blame one!

OH I am now a member of the L club. Whooooohoooo.

[cdhender]

Did you tell your wife this time? LOL.

Congrats on the new purchase :)

[schmoelzel]

You'll really like this lens Dante!! PM me your address and I will send you some tea samples just so you don't feel left out!!! :D

[ayotnoms]

Exactly how long did it take to repair that lens anyway? :lol:
Congrats!!
Now you all you need is to find a nice steamer trunk to carry just your essential photographic gear around.

[cactusclay]

I saw it in the stars and knew you would chipy on the DO club and join the L club. Congrats Dante, your going to have to raise the price of breakfast now.

[Dante King]

.......Now you all you need is to find a nice steamer trunk to carry just your essential photographic gear around.

LOL, funny! Hey you know what? It all fits in my micro trekker. Its seriously heavy but it fits. Hey wait. I have to pull out my macro now....Maybe a bigger bag, but that would be deadly. For my back and my wallet.

[drisley]

Congrats Dante!
I have been reading that the lens hood for the 24/1.4L will fit this lens, gives better protection, and takes less room than the default lens hood. I may buy one except it's almost $50us.

Something I have been noticing. This lens is much sharper at 16mm than at 35mm.
Dante, do you notice this?

At 16mm, this lens is SHARP. Even wide open it gives my 85/1.8 lens a run for the money at all apertures. It's definately sharper than my 50/1.8II.

At 35mm, it's noticably softer, at all apertures. I always figured a lens like this would be sharper.

Here are 100% center crops taken at F2.8:
These are straight out of PS CS2 Raw with NO sharpening. 16mm looks is so sharp it almost looks like USM is applied!

16mm
http://images4.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/16mm_f2_8.jpg

35mm
http://images4.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/35mm_f2_8.jpg

[Dante King]

I will have to check it out. Seems as the right side of the image is sharper than the left. It might have something to do with the reflection off the cap lettering. can you try in indirect light?

I only had a few moments to fondle this beauty on a demo 20D. Will report back soon.

[cfcRebel]

Hey Dante, congratulations on the L lens! Can't wait to see more pictures from u.

[DocFrankenstein]

This lens is much sharper at 16mm than at 35mm.
Dante, do you notice this?

At 16mm, this lens is SHARP.
Methinks mesees horrendous flare... and it's soft on both ends, esp on 35mm.

I think I'll stick with primes for now. :confused:

[drisley]

That's not flare. That's sensor blooming.
It's as sharp as my 85/1.8 at the wide end, and sharper than my 50/1.8II.
So, going to primes will not improve things (unless it's the 135L).
The only problem appears to be at 35mm end.

[Tom W]

That's not flare. That's sensor blooming.
It's as sharp as my 85/1.8 at the wide end, and sharper than my 50/1.8II.
So, going to primes will not improve things (unless it's the 135L).
The only problem appears to be at 35mm end.

I think its more of a depth-of-field issue myself. Is the Canon insignia parallel to the sensor, or at an angle?

Looks good to me anyway. I found great center sharpness at f/2.8 on mine as well, but the corners require some stopping down at the wide end on my copy. Haven't found a wide that's better though - so far. Then again, you probably wouldn't be shooting a landscape at f/2.8 anyway.

[Maureen Souza]

It is a very cool lens....loved using mine at the wedding..... Congrats!! We can all go to the poor house together......

[steibeldj]

Dante, I've been paying attention over the last few months and I did the math. At your rate of lens buying, you will be homeless in... x-y/24+sqrt(3.14)= next month.

[drisley]

Tom, that picture was taken intentionally at an angle, so I could look for focusing issues.
At 16mm, it blows away most primes. But at 35mm, I find it slightly softer than my 50/1.8.

The reason I started measurbating is because of the 100+ pictures I took this weekend, I was shocked at how sharp the 100% crops of the 16mm shots were. However, I just didnt quite get the same feeling from the 35mm end. I also find it odd that the sharpness doesnt improve going from F2.8 to F8 on the long end (just DOF).

[DocFrankenstein]

Don't listen to me, I'm just subconsciosly jelous ;)

[Tom W]

Tom, that picture was taken intentionally at an angle, so I could look for focusing issues.
At 16mm, it blows away most primes. But at 35mm, I find it slightly softer than my 50/1.8.

The reason I started measurbating is because of the 100+ pictures I took this weekend, I was shocked at how sharp the 100% crops of the 16mm shots were. However, I just didnt quite get the same feeling from the 35mm end. I also find it odd that the sharpness doesnt improve going from F2.8 to F8 on the long end (just DOF).

Nothing wrong with a little testing. I think the shots look fine, though the long end is a little weaker. Frankly, I'd prefer that the short end be better anyway. I can do 24 mm 3 different ways and they're all good. 16 is a more difficult focal length for a full-frame lens.

I don't think that there's a prime other than the 15 mm fisheye that is sharper in the corners at 16 (or 15) mm, except for some $2000+ Zeiss offering maybe. I had a particularly good 20/2.8 USM that was pretty close from f/4 on, but at f/2.8, it fell apart compared to the zoom. Still a good lens, but I decided to keep the 16-35 over that prime since it didn't do 16 (and on the 1D Mk II, 16 will get you roughly 20).

My Sigma 1.8 wasn't up to the task either, at least not at wider apertures. It was quite nice stopped down to f/8 or so, but what's the value of a fast lens if you always need to stop it down? I understand stopping down for landscape type images where the corners really matter but my copy of the 1.8 needed more help.

Overall, the 16-35 is the best ultra-wide I've found so far.

[drisley]

Don't listen to me, I'm just subconsciosly jelous ;)
Hahah! Well, you can get primes that do the job for less money. That is the main reason I sold my 2 wide end primes, to consolidate into one zoom. The wide end for me is probably the only place I would use a zoom.
The colour and clarity of this lens at 16mm is truly amazing. I am just surprised that it's not as amazing at the long end, although it is still very good.

I find at 16mm at F2.8 it's sharper with better contrast than at 35mm, even when stopped down to F10. Actually, stopping down makes little difference at both ends other than DOF. The 16mm is just as sharp, super sharp, at F2.8 as at F10.

If anybody with this lens could take a second and maybe try a couple pics at the wide and long end I would REALLY appreciate it. It may save me trying to get the lens calibrated. But, since it's not a focus issue, can there be anything that can be done anyway.

For overall sharpness and contrast, on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best) this is what I surmise...

135/2L : 10
16-35/2.8L @16mm : 9
85/1.8 : 8
50/1.8II : 7.5
16-35/2.8L @35mm : 7

[Dante King]

Thanks CFC and Maureen.

Dante, I've been paying attention over the last few months and I did the math. At your rate of lens buying, you will be homeless in... x-y/24+sqrt(3.14)= next month.

Dude, You crack me up! Can I move in with you?

Drisley, I will test asap. But it wont be for a few days.

[drisley]

Thanks Dante. :)

[markubig]

so i wonder if this new "I did it again" thread by Dante will surpass the currently 200+ replies of his 70-300 DO IS USM thread (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69954)? http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/tongue3.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/tongue3.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/tongue3.gif

CONGRATS DANTE!!! Remember, before you bring it home to the wifey, write your usual "Open Box Special: $199.95" on it . . . http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif

[Dante King]

LOL Mark. ubig and ufunny!

[drisley]

I just did some more testing. I found that at 35mm, this lens is just as sharp as the 50/1.8II at most apertures. I think there may have been some focus issues do to user error.
So, in my observation, the 16-35L is sharp at 35mm, and it's INSANELY sharp at 16mm, even wide open!
It's not a matter of bad and good, but rather good and VERY good.
I'm still wondering how/why this lens can be so sharp at 16mm wide open.

Here is a full size image (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/35mm_big.jpg)taken at 35mm, F2.8, 1/500 sec.

Keep in mind, it's even sharper at 16mm F2.8

[Dante King]

Drisley, here are my two pics. Keep in mind that these are hand held and at 1/50 shutter. 1st pic is 16mm second is 35mm all 100% crops no PP added.

[Michaelmjc]

Dante, Dante, Dante... You silly old man, you're gonna spend all your money. What will your kids eat? ;) Everytime I turn around you bought a new lens, pretty soon you're gonna take up 3/4's of the page with your sig! haha

[Dante King]

Let them eat lenses!!

[Michaelmjc]

Let them eat lenses!!
eat your lenses? thats an awful idea... thats the most expensive food you can buy.

[Dante King]

no they can eat the phoenix and Q brands.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Looking at Dante's pictures, I'm wondering if this is more a contrast than sharpness issue.

At 16mm the cap is quite dark and the lettering is very noticeable, yet in the 35mm the cap is much greyer and the lettering appears softer, but really isn't.

Wonder how that would look with a change in exposure time to match the contrast?

Something worth watching out for when using our lens.

PS. I have this lens and generally just use it for landscape, not so much macro. Should look closer at this ability:confused:

[Tom W]

I think that the white balance is a bit different between Dante's two shots, but color probably wasn't the purpose of his test. Sharpness-wise, those two images look very good.

Certainly, he could lock the white balance for the appropriate light, meter and shoot in manual with the same settings and make minor corrections ( +/- 1/3 stop) before converting to JPG. Seems like a lot to go through in this case though.

[drisley]

Thanks Dante.
Your images look much closer at the wide and long ends than mine.
Hmmm, I wonder if I should eventually send mine in....

[Dante King]

Hey drisley. that full sized jpeg is RAZOR sharp. I think your lens is fine but that is ultimately up to you.

OH, hey schmoelzel is a quality guy! he did not want my 16-35 to go with out any tea and is sending me some! I cant wait as I love tea. Iced is my favorite. You will think I am nuts but I love first flush pekoe as iced tea! people have told me this is a waste, but I am addicted to it. Dont serve this at the diner, but I have my personal stash brewed up and sip it all day long. Thanks to schmoelzel! (I dont think I go that name right)

[drisley]

Thanks Dante. So you think that full size image is passable :)
I actually have been comparing to some 85/1.8 and 135/2L shots I took that day, and the 16-35L shots at 35mm hold up very well. It's actually hard to tell a difference.
Yes, Schmoelzel is a great guy. And his tea is awesome too. Flush Pekoe? Never heard of it. I'm a Rooibos and Green Tea person myself.
Perhaps Schmoelzel should set something up with the camera shop across the street. Buy a 16-35L, and get some free tea. Or buy some green tea and get a free 16-35L ;)

[Dante King]

LOL drisley! He would have a booming business. Oh I love green tea too! the more twigy tasting the better. Japaneese green is my fav green tea. I find the cafeene high much cleaner than coffee. Now if thats not an addict talking......

I cant wait to get out and snap some shot with this baby. maybe this afternoon as I am going home to be with the family. My family named Canon! LOL j/k.

[mrclark321]

Congrats Dante....I will keep my comments in check this time...lol

Dan

[drisley]

LOL drisley! He would have a booming business. Oh I love green tea too! the more twigy tasting the better. Japaneese green is my fav green tea. I find the cafeene high much cleaner than coffee. Now if thats not an addict talking......

I cant wait to get out and snap some shot with this baby. maybe this afternoon as I am going home to be with the family. My family named Canon! LOL j/k.
Dante, you should try the Matcha Green Tea. It's a fine, bright green, powdered tea used in the traditional japanese tea ceremonies. You whisk it into a frothy drink that is 10x healthier than regular green tea because you consume the whole leaf. I just got some from schmoelzel, and it's amazing. It definately gives you that feeling of clarity.

Check out the colour on this tea!
(taken at 35mm , f2.8 btw ;))
http://images4.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/IMG_9788.jpg

[schmoelzel]

Hey .......NICE SHOT!!!! Love the cup and the whisk (and the tea of course). Not a huge fan of matcha but it is very healthy and packs a caffeine punch! Which lens is that? Now that has POP with a capital P! Colours are great especially the golden floor.........

OT question......I sold my 85F1.8 w/hood to Toogy today and he asked me if the hood rotates freely all the time.........I think it does but I know you have this lens and probably the hood; does yours rotate freely (meaning locked in place but you can turn it easily)

Thanks.......

[schmoelzel]

oops.....just noticed that you put the info about lens and aperture with the pic!!

[drisley]

oops.....just noticed that you put the info about lens and aperture with the pic!!
Yes, it was the 16-35L. I think that lens will be on my camera most of the time, save for sporting events where the 135L carries the load :)

Schmoelzel, yes, the hood on the 85/1.8 does rotate freely all the time. It's design is very different from other hoods. Sometimes I find it a little hard to remove, because you have to pinch the "buttons" and that causes the hood to hold on to the lens, and not want to come off. If I have the camera on my neck with the strap, I like to lightly pinch the two buttons with one hand, and then use my free hand to push the hood away from the lens somewhere in between the two buttons. This seems to work the best.

That 85/1.8 is definately an amazing lens, and it almost give the 135L a run. I really think it's the best bargain in the Canon lineup, even better than the 50/1.8II.

Oh, and back to the Matcha. It has the exact same smell as a freshly mowed lawn (which I happen to like)

[karjar]

Damn you Drisley! I didnt get any tea out of the deal but I did pick up a 16-35L 2.8 for the bag just a few moments ago. Seeing the pics of this lens on the forums and feedback from owners, I had to jump. Cant wait to put this lens thru the trials. I am now considerably poorer and its all due to Drisley..LOL Got to blame one!

OH I am now a member of the L club. Whooooohoooo.

Trader....banish him from the green club :)
Nice lens, now I am *green* with envy. Guess the DO will just have to work harder....oh, tough to get that 70-300 of mine donw to 16mm:(

[Dante King]

No Karjar, I am part of the rainbow colalition now! LOL.

Hey Drisley, looks like your lens is in stellar shape man. Matcha? Huh, will have to look into that. Do you need that wisking tool to make it? If it gives that caffeene jolt. I'm in. I love drinikng freshly mowed lawns too!

MrClark, thank you for your best behavior. LOL

[Jackal]

It has the exact same smell as a freshly mowed lawn (which I happen to like)
For some reason......I really REALLY hate the smell of freshly mowed lawn. I don't know why but I do.

That's one heck of a lense by the way.

[drisley]

Jackal, as a kid, I used to hate that smell of cut grass too. But now I kind of like it.
The smell of the tea isn't exactly the same, but similar. The tea smells nicer, fresher, I think.
Dante, yes, this tea does have a fair amount of caffeine. Many who drink it say it gives them the jolt of coffee, but with more clarity, much like you aluded to earlier.
That whisk is made of bamboo, and it can be fairly expensive. I THINK you may be able to just use a small metal whisk that you could probably find at Wal-mart or something.

[Dante King]

LOL walmart. I own a restaurant..dont need no stinking walmart...LOL Being a chef for 25 years, I have wisks. What I really need is a giesha girl! She can make the tea and bring me my lenses....

[drisley]

LOL walmart. I own a restaurant..dont need no stinking walmart...LOL Being a chef for 25 years, I have wisks. What I really need is a giesha girl! She can make the tea and bring me my lenses....
Haha! Yeah, right, I forgot. If you got a Canon Geisha Girl, she could make you your lenses and bring you your tea.

[Dante King]

Haha! Yeah, right, I forgot. If you got a Canon Geisha Girl, she could make you your lenses and bring you your tea.

Yeah or walk on my back when it goes out.

[mrclark321]

Carrying all those lenses and ducking frying pans....lol
Sorry could not resist.

Dan
Yeah or walk on my back when it goes out.

[Biko]

Had a quick test pics are at 100% centre cropped, nothing done to them. Taken at 2.8 iso 400, 16mm was at 1/80, 35mm was at 1/100. I get same result very sharp at 16mm softer at 35mm.

16mm
http://www.btinternet.com/~i.c.palmer/16mm.jpg

35mm
http://www.btinternet.com/~i.c.palmer/35mm.jpg

[drisley]

Biko,
Thanks mucho! Yes, very similar. Perhaps the lens just doesn't like the lenscap at 35mm :)
I think this lens is primed for wide angle use. However, in real life usage, I have found this lens at 35mm is still super sharp, and comparable to some of my primes.
I've done more comparisons, and I dont see as big a difference anymore. Perhaps things like dof and camera shake play a bigger factor at the long end (well, I guess it should).
Once again, thanks Biko!

[Dante King]

Yeah drisley..Matcha shake! you know, I have found very little difference btw 16 and 35 mm when you move up from 2.8 I find this lens to be super sharp thru the zoom range.

[Tom W]

OK, I can't resist any longer. 100% crops of lens cap images are the "in" thing so here's mine.

First, at 16 mm:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/44571158.jpg

And again at 35 mm:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/44571159.jpg

I think the 16 is a bit better also, but the lighting was a bit different between the two. Instead of moving the camera to compensate for focal length, I moved the object up and down.

[drisley]

I would say that the lens is super sharp across the board, it's just slightly sharper at the wide end.
And as some say,this may be a good thing, since more detail is usually needed at the wide end.
For a wide angle zoom to compete with normal/telephoto prime lenses is quite a feat. But then again, it comes at a price.

[Dante King]

Carrying all those lenses and ducking frying pans....lol
Sorry could not resist.

Dan

Thats why you are so dear to me Dano!

[I Simonius]

I just did some more testing. I found that at 35mm, this lens is just as sharp as the 50/1.8II at most apertures. I think there may have been some focus issues do to user error.
So, in my observation, the 16-35L is sharp at 35mm, and it's INSANELY sharp at 16mm, even wide open!
It's not a matter of bad and good, but rather good and VERY good.
I'm still wondering how/why this lens can be so sharp at 16mm wide open.

Here is a full size image (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/35mm_big.jpg)taken at 35mm, F2.8, 1/500 sec.

Keep in mind, it's even sharper at 16mm F2.8

OUCH! That IS sharp!

[I Simonius]

OK, I can't resist any longer. 100% crops of lens cap images are the "in" thing so here's mine.

First, at 16 mm:
snip

I think the 16 is a bit better also, but the lighting was a bit different between the two. Instead of moving the camera to compensate for focal length, I moved the object up and down.

How close did you get to those caps @ 16mm?

[Tom W]

How close did you get to those caps @ 16mm?


Just over a foot from the front of the lens to the cap. Here's the original image before cropping:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/44657393.jpg

[Dante King]

nice rug.

[drisley]

nice rug.
Huh? The picture only shows his foot, not his hair!
;)

[drisley]

OUCH! That IS sharp!
So you think that is passable?
Btw, it's even sharper at the wide end if you can believe it.
The nice thing about this lens is that it's just as sharp at F2.8 as it is at F11.

[mrclark321]

I hope your not mad at me Thats why you are so dear to me Dano!

[Dante King]

No not mad at all. I am one to throw gas on fires too. LOL

[mrclark321]

Are you enjoying the new lense? I want to get the Tamron 28-75 but I have to play catch up on the Mastercard....My wife would be pissed!!!lol

Dan

[Dante King]

actually, it will be broken in correctly on this coming monday. Damn the torpedos man. Wives are always pissed. Its only 400 bones. what about fathers day? HINT HINT....Oh HONEY! LMAO.

[mrclark321]

LOL...Tom Petty...what does that expressin mean??actually, it will be broken in correctly on this coming monday. Damn the torpedos man. Wives are always pissed. Its only 400 bones. what about fathers day? HINT HINT....Oh HONEY! LMAO.

[Dante King]

LMAO? Laughing my *ss off.

[Tom W]

nice rug.

Thanks. :)

[Tom W]

Huh? The picture only shows his foot, not his hair!
;)

And in my case, its hardwood floors on top. :)

[Dante King]

LOL! me too.

[Bob_A]

I find at 16mm at F2.8 it's sharper with better contrast than at 35mm, even when stopped down to F10. Actually, stopping down makes little difference at both ends other than DOF. The 16mm is just as sharp, super sharp, at F2.8 as at F10.




Take a look at the MTF charts on the Canon site to see if what you see is just what should be expected:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=7487

It looks to me that for both f2.8 and f8, at 16mm the lens should have better resolution near the center of the frame than at 35mm. How noticeable the resolution difference is between 16 and 35 at the edges though may depend on the sensor size. But squinting at the MTF I think that using a 20D edge resoulution still may be better at 16mm than at 35mm.

Contrast reproduction is also probably a bit better at 16mm than at 35mm near the center of the frame ... but on the edges the contrast reproduction looks like it should be better at 35mm.

[Dante King]

Great info BOB!

[drisley]

Thanks Bob.

[Bob_A]

I just found this cool site with an MTF "comparo-meter":

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm

Some guys have too much time on their hands :)

[Dante King]

LOL very cool. Thanks again. nice work that is!

[drisley]

Great site, but I wish they would have used a white background. It's very hard to read the text beside the lenses.
Finally too I can now understand what the different lines mean!

[Dante King]

yeah it is really hard to read. kinda fun nad interesting to do side by side comaprisons. bad in a way that makes me want to try new lenses.

[drisley]

But, you can't always believe what the charts tell you.
For example the 70-200/2.8L's chart is much better than the 135L's.
But we all know in the real world, the 135L is a step above the 70-200L in terms of image quality.
Oh, I found a way to make it easier to read the text on that page. Just use your mouse and left button to "select" all the contents on the page. That way all the background becomes white, and it's much easier to read.

[Bob_A]

I disagree drisley (I hope ya don't mind! :o ),

The Canon MTF charts are quite accurate for making lens comparisons, however, this one is difficult since the focal lengths and wide open aperatures are not the same. To properly compare these lenses you would need an MTF for the 135mm at f2.8 and an MTF for the 70-200 at 135mm (both at f8 and f2.8 ).

Using the charts provided you'd have to look at both the 70mm and 200mm charts for the 70-200 and count on its behaviour at 135mm to be somewhere in between. At 200mm and f8 the 70-200 may be a bit sharper to 10-15mm from the center of the frame than the 135mm f2L, but at 70mm it doesn't look to me to be as sharp as the 135 (look at the meridonial lines). At 135mm for the 70-200, who knows :) ? The 135mm f2L could certainly be better, we just don't have any data provided by Canon to make a real comparison.

I also wouldn't bother comparing using the black (wide open) lines since one lens is f2.8 and the other is f2. If the 135 had a set of lines for f2.8 it would look much better than the f2.0 lines shown.