Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 28 Aug 2016 (Sunday) 18:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens

 
Tareq
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Avatar
17,818 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 390
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ajman - UAE
     
Sep 03, 2016 12:08 |  #16

HKFEVER wrote in post #18115555 (external link)
I sold II right after the news came out :rolleyes:

Congrats!

Where are the images then??? :lol:


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/ (external link)
Gear List
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
HKFEVER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,881 posts
Gallery: 59 photos
Likes: 747
Joined Oct 2004
Location: Hong Kong
     
Sep 04, 2016 06:54 |  #17

Tareq wrote in post #18115649 (external link)
Congrats!

Where are the images then??? :lol:

I mean the release news, so I don't have the 16-35L now :(




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,890 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 810
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Sep 04, 2016 12:33 |  #18

My gut feeling is that the new mk3 will be tack sharp like the 24-70L f/2.8mk2.

I also feel that I will probably be buying another new 16-35L f/2.8mk2 so I can have a flare lens. The mk3 will control the flare to the point that you will have a hell of a time trying to produce artistic lens flare.

The 16-35 f/4is with sun in lens has an extremely difficult time to acquire AF with my 5dmk2/mk3. With my f/2.8mk2 it's easy to acquire focus.

This is just an example of my application in the f/2.8mk2.

At the end of the day I will be buying a mk3 and deal with its "nature". The f/2.8mk2 needs to be updated for more micro contrast sharpness.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
795 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 240
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Sep 05, 2016 11:32 |  #19

Tareq wrote in post #18110006 (external link)
Also i just bought Tamron 15-30 f2.8, and this will prevent me from this mk3 for long long time i think.

What is people looking for in UWA lenses in general? Sharpness? most are sharp already, flare? someone can use this in artistic way and it shouldn't be the only con.

Weight and price are something permanent, always weight and price are issues no matter how good/bad is the lens.

The question is, how wide is WIDE enough we need, and how fast we need it.

I sold my Canon 16-35mm f/4 3 months ago. Hated to do it but I needed wider aperture for concerts and event photography. After two copies of the 16-35mm f/2.8 II I grew frustrated and purchased the Tamron 15-30mm. This lens is the real deal, super sharp in center and acceptably so at all corners, focus system is acceptably prompt to lock on to subject. I'm super pleased with this lens but I will probably sell it for the new Canon, as I will need to periodically use filters. I'm having a hard time justifying almost 3x the price, as I can't imagine the 16-35mm III to be 3x better than the Tamron. I'm waiting for reviews before I make a final decision (and hopefully a small price drop).

Good luck to you Tareq.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Avatar
17,818 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 390
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ajman - UAE
     
Sep 05, 2016 14:13 |  #20

Nethawked wrote in post #18117679 (external link)
I sold my Canon 16-35mm f/4 3 months ago. Hated to do it but I needed wider aperture for concerts and event photography. After two copies of the 16-35mm f/2.8 II I grew frustrated and purchased the Tamron 15-30mm. This lens is the real deal, super sharp in center and acceptably so at all corners, focus system is acceptably prompt to lock on to subject. I'm super pleased with this lens but I will probably sell it for the new Canon, as I will need to periodically use filters. I'm having a hard time justifying almost 3x the price, as I can't imagine the 16-35mm III to be 3x better than the Tamron. I'm waiting for reviews before I make a final decision (and hopefully a small price drop).

Good luck to you Tareq.

Put that 3x of the price towards the filters system for Tamron, i didn't use the Tamron yet and there is no way i will get rid of it for this new Canon only because the filters, there are solutions for filters on Tamron, but i know all are complaining about budget, so funny why they don't complain about this Canon new lens price then if that Tamron filter system is over priced.


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/ (external link)
Gear List
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,227 posts
Likes: 81
Joined Oct 2009
Post edited over 2 years ago by FuturamaJSP.
     
Sep 06, 2016 01:27 as a reply to  @ HKFEVER's post |  #21

This is actually a smart move because when the 16-35 III hit the store shelves the resale value of the old version II would instantly go down.
Thats exactly what happened when I sold my 35L right after Sigma announced their 35 Art :D Sold it for 1200 :D


Am i the only one who is using the 16-35 IS for landscapes? :O


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
795 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 240
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Sep 07, 2016 06:51 |  #22

Tareq wrote in post #18117855 (external link)
Put that 3x of the price towards the filters system for Tamron, i didn't use the Tamron yet and there is no way i will get rid of it for this new Canon only because the filters, there are solutions for filters on Tamron, but i know all are complaining about budget, so funny why they don't complain about this Canon new lens price then if that Tamron filter system is over priced.

Shoot a few concerts and music festivals to learn how important it is to protect the front element of your lenses, and "there is no way" changes quickly :)

Weight is another factor. I could drop a few lbs from my bag.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Avatar
17,818 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 390
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ajman - UAE
     
Sep 07, 2016 15:41 |  #23

Nethawked wrote in post #18119781 (external link)
Shoot a few concerts and music festivals to learn how important it is to protect the front element of your lenses, and "there is no way" changes quickly :)

Weight is another factor. I could drop a few lbs from my bag.

Sorry, didn't understand this post so i will let it pass.


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/ (external link)
Gear List
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HKFEVER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,881 posts
Gallery: 59 photos
Likes: 747
Joined Oct 2004
Location: Hong Kong
     
Sep 28, 2016 01:15 |  #24

Just ordered, and will arrive in HK around Oct-6 :twisted:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
795 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 240
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Sep 28, 2016 09:16 |  #25

HKFEVER wrote in post #18142433 (external link)
Just ordered, and will arrive in HK around Oct-6 :twisted:

Congrats, great choice. I have my Tamron for sale and am awaiting announcement for pre-order. I really like the Tamron but for the issues I raised above. Take a look at a photo I took over the weekend at the end of this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1467102

The level of detail, color and sharpness are amazing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,890 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 810
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Sep 28, 2016 09:38 |  #26

Nethawked wrote in post #18142670 (external link)
Congrats, great choice. I have my Tamron for sale and am awaiting announcement for pre-order. I really like the Tamron but for the issues I raised above. Take a look at a photo I took over the weekend at the end of this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1467102

The level of detail, color and sharpness are amazing.

I need to test a mk3 version from Canon. My concern is still how it reacts with the direct sunlight for intentional sunflares for my events photography outdoors. The Canon f4IS is so antiflare that it will annoy you denying you of the flare shots you want. When you want intentional flares it just resists!!!! Same goes for most modern canon lenses like the 24-70L f/2.8mk2 it's difficult to get dramatic flare "easily". This is one reason why I'll be buying another mk2 version as a spare. The older UWA isn't as sharp as the new nano coated Canon lenses but it's sharp enough and it's a workhorse. Even indoors the older mk2 is easier to have killer remote flash starburst shots but the f4is version is more sharper and distinct in flash "stars".

Something to mention as I've recently purchased a Fuji 10-24 f/4 UWA lens. This lens on a fuji 16mpx crop sensor (all I have at the moment) is like the identical files I get with my 5dmk3 with 16-35 f/4IS!!!! the fuji 10-24 is about 2000 dollars less than a 16-35 mk3!!!! This is where I've discovered that majority of my fuji lenses are tack sharp in virtually all focal lengths in their zooms. Without a doubt the fuji 10-24mm is substantially sharper than the aging 16-35 f/2.8mk2.

At this moment in time I feel that the latest and greatest from Canon is a nice to have for me (I'll get it eventually) but the mk2 is totally solid for what I want in a lens.

I truly fear the "anti flare" characteristics will limit me in how I use the lens or it will change my shooting style. This is one reason why I am so curious to see if it ticks all the requirements I need in the new mk3.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,314 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 2032
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Sep 28, 2016 23:06 |  #27

OK so most of you guys are gonna kill me for saying this

BUT

I think this lens is a waste of good $$$

there is very little difference with a WA lens from F/2.8 to F/4. Very little in terms of bokeh especially.

I think you are better served with a newer sensor and better ISO performance on the 5D4 and 1DX2 and buying the 16-35 F/4 IS

16-35 F/4 IS is killer sharp at F/4, Bokeh is super close,it has IS. and its going to be a heck of a lot cheaper

I think the $$ spent for the extra stop is a waste with the new sensors

Just my .02 cents


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FJ ­ LOVE
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,883 posts
Likes: 82
Joined Nov 2006
Location: barrie ont. ca
     
Sep 28, 2016 23:27 |  #28

AlanU wrote in post #18142695 (external link)
Something to mention as I've recently purchased a Fuji 10-24 f/4 UWA lens. This lens on a fuji 16mpx crop sensor (all I have at the moment) is like the identical files I get with my 5dmk3 with 16-35 f/4IS!!!! the fuji 10-24 is about 2000 dollars less than a 16-35 mk3!!!! This is where I've discovered that majority of my fuji lenses are tack sharp in virtually all focal lengths in their zooms. Without a doubt the fuji 10-24mm is substantially sharper than the aging 16-35 f/2.8mk2.

I completely agree, the 16-35L looks like a fisheye lens compared to the wide angle on the Fuji ;-)a


DILLIGAF about your bicycle or your gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
Goldmember
Avatar
3,337 posts
Gallery: 434 photos
Likes: 2277
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Sep 28, 2016 23:33 as a reply to  @ umphotography's post |  #29

Are there enough samples of this lens out yet to show why it's worth so much more $ than the 16-35mm F4?


Sony Alpha A7III ~ Canon EOS M5 ~ Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 ~ Canon EF 35mm f2 IS
Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS ~ Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM ~
Sigma MC-11 ~ Sony FE 85mm f/1.8

Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
795 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 240
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Sep 29, 2016 11:12 |  #30

umphotography wrote in post #18143297 (external link)
OK so most of you guys are gonna kill me for saying this

BUT

I think this lens is a waste of good $$$

there is very little difference with a WA lens from F/2.8 to F/4. Very little in terms of bokeh especially.

I think you are better served with a newer sensor and better ISO performance on the 5D4 and 1DX2 and buying the 16-35 F/4 IS

16-35 F/4 IS is killer sharp at F/4, Bokeh is super close,it has IS. and its going to be a heck of a lot cheaper

I think the $$ spent for the extra stop is a waste with the new sensors

Just my .02 cents

For many I would agree, and this is great advice. However, when I'm already at ISO 6400-12800 in a dark theater I need every stop I can get and need to rely on both lens ans sensor for published photos. I tried several times with the f/4 version & 6D before I reluctantly sold it. Believe me, I'm hating the inflated price of III and would love to avoid it, but I can't.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16,850 views & 27 likes for this thread
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is canoneye
935 guests, 372 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.