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 19 Oct 2016 (Wednesday) 18:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

anyone with experience with the 16-35 2.8 III yet?

 
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,882 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2687
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
Post edited over 2 years ago by umphotography.
     
Nov 10, 2016 09:56 |  #46

Classified wrote in post #18179566 (external link)
Maybe you can rent the lens before the purchase? And if most of your shots are taken at 35 mm, I wonder if the 35 II would not be an even better choice than this zoom for you? Yes, the 16-35 III is very sharp, but the 35 II is a bit unique in my eyes. A lens that combines that speed, sharpness and lack of colour bleeding with AF is a mighty tool in the box; the 35 II really shines at events when the light is low and flash is either forbidden or at least very annoying for the visitors so you just do not use it. And the moderate 35 mm wide angle keeps the DoF sufficient enough even when shooting at f/1.4 to f/1.8.

Here are another two shots taken with the 16-35 III.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Classified in
./showthread.php?p=181​79566&i=i254652478
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Classified in
./showthread.php?p=181​79566&i=i37103031
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


First off

Nice shots

2nd...If you need shutter speed, why not use a flash, blend it well because with flash use you could easily get these results uner 1/100 with shutter speeds. Flash will help isolate and help prevents blur at slower shutter speeds

3rd....Your 6D have great usable ISO so why not bump the ISO. These are at 1600 ISO. So another stop at F/4 Puts this at 3200-4000 ISO use ??

Love the photos. But I think this lens is horrendously priced waaaaaay to high. I have great bodies and Im going to go 16-35 F/4. From what Im seeing on most of the comparison shots sharpness with both lens is comparable....Bokeh on a WA is not that different at F/4 and F/2.8

Im of the opinion that this lens is going to be used for niche stuff like night astro photography and event work where you cant use a flash. Other than that. I think the F/4 will do the same job

appreciate your thoughts about this


Mike
www.umphotography.com (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)
MatthewK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,199 posts
Gallery: 777 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 13470
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Nov 10, 2016 10:38 |  #47

umphotography wrote in post #18180821 (external link)
First off

Nice shots

2nd...If you need shutter speed, why not use a flash, blend it well because with flash use you could easily get these results uner 1/100 with shutter speeds. Flash will help isolate and help prevents blur at slower shutter speeds

3rd....Your 6D have great usable ISO so why not bump the ISO. These are at 1600 ISO. So another stop at F/4 Puts this at 3200-4000 ISO use ??

Love the photos. But I think this lens is horrendously priced waaaaaay to high. I have great bodies and Im going to go 16-35 F/4. From what Im seeing on most of the comparison shots sharpness with both lens is comparable....Bokeh on a WA is not that different at F/4 and F/2.8

Im of the opinion that this lens is going to be used for niche stuff like night astro photography and event work where you cant use a flash. Other than that. I think the F/4 will do the same job

appreciate your thoughts about this

Agreed, it's mighty expensive for what it provides vs. the f/4 IS. I used the f/4 for similar events, and it certainly delivered. It's a great lens, no doubt, especially with the high ISO of the new bodies somewhat negating the f/2.8 advantage. Along with that, the weight (lack of), IS, and cost make choosing between them a difficult choice.


Canon/Nikon/Fuji

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kaitanium
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,964 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by kaitanium. (3 edits in all)
     
Nov 10, 2016 10:49 |  #48

For me its not the low(er) light capability of the f2.8 that does it for me, its the slightly blurrier DOF that makes me not want to get the f4. Im too used to shooting 2.8. The f4 is CHEEEEAAPPPPP though.

no way am i buying the mk3 right now. Im waiting 1.5years. I dont want to be an early adopter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,882 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2687
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Nov 10, 2016 10:55 |  #49

kaitanium wrote in post #18180865 (external link)
For me its not the low(er) light capability of the f2.8 that does it for me, its the slightly blurrier DOF that makes me not want to get the f4. The f4 is CHEEEEAAPPPPP though.


Will bet if you took the exact shot side by side with both lens... you will not see $1500.00 worth of Bokeh improvement

especially with photoshops blur capabilities and masking capabilities

Granted its not the same. But with 10 yrs shooting weddings full time...I dont see enough and neither do my clients. I use F/2.8 glass because of camera restrictions which is no longer an issue with the new bodies

I use fast primes for Bokeh needs

I think F/2.8 zooms are a total waste of $$$ anymore. Im F/4 all the way for zooms, clean camera sensors and fast glass for bokeh needs.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1210
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Nov 10, 2016 11:03 |  #50

Classified wrote in post #18179401 (external link)
The focus speed and accuracy is very good with the III as the II was (the 16-35 f/4 is much slower in dim light than both of the f/2.8 variants in my opinion, but it can also be camera related). Yes, it is a dim light venue, ISO 3200 to 6400 with a 0,5-1 stop push is mostly common with my f/2.8 lenses. When I am done taking the "safe" shots during a set, I get the third camera with the 35/1.4 II, it is perhaps the best Canon lens I own, It is like having supertelephoto performance in a fast wide angle lens!

No, I do not use flash or the AF assist function.

I also have the 16-35/2.8 II, but I do not know... the second hand value has really dropped and since I get paid to shoot (I am allowed to share many of the photos however), there may be more of a value for me having that lens as a spare UWA-zoom if the 16-35/2.8 III malfunctions or something happens to it.

One funny thing is that the 16-35 III almost looks and feels as the 24-70 II. Even the lens hoods look the same... I really look forward to see the future 24, 50, 85 and 135 L-upgrades! A dream lens for me would probably be an EF 28/1.4, performance like the Otus one, but with AF and somewhat lower weight and price.


I agree about Canon offering a 28/1.4 - I think it would be a staple of every event photographer - especially as we have moved to higher megapixel cameras and cropping a slightly wider framing is easy to do.

And totally agree about the 35 1.4 II - it is an amazing lens - a true keeper.


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 502
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Nov 10, 2016 11:03 |  #51

umphotography wrote in post #18180870 (external link)
Will bet if you took the exact shot side by side with both lens... you will not see $1500.00 worth of Bokeh improvement

especially with photoshops blur capabilities and masking capabilities

Granted its not the same. But with 10 yrs shooting weddings full time...I dont see enough and neither do my clients. I use F/2.8 glass because of camera restrictions which is no longer an issue with the new bodies

I use fast primes for Bokeh needs

I think F/2.8 zooms are a total waste of $$$ anymore. Im F/4 all the way for zooms, clean camera sensors and fast glass for bokeh needs.

You convinced me :-}. I cannot justify the price of the 2.8 unless I dump my 24L and I just don't want to do that so it will be the F4 IS for me. I agree the 2.8 is probably ideal for astro and photojournalists but for travel and landscapes I think the F4 IS is probably a better choice.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1210
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Nov 10, 2016 11:10 |  #52

for event work, i think this new lens is amazing - but the 4 stop wide open corner vignetting for outdoor landscape type work I think is a deal killer - never mind the price - should be $400 cheaper

my decision, and what I have done personally, is that I would rather own the 35Lii 1.4 - it is bar none, the best lens Canon makes outside the super big whites - it is razor blade sharp @ F1.8 across the entire frame with perfect autofocus


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kaitanium
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,964 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by kaitanium. (5 edits in all)
     
Nov 10, 2016 11:15 |  #53

umphotography wrote in post #18180870 (external link)
Will bet if you took the exact shot side by side with both lens... you will not see $1500.00 worth of Bokeh improvement

especially with photoshops blur capabilities and masking capabilities

Granted its not the same. But with 10 yrs shooting weddings full time...I dont see enough and neither do my clients. I use F/2.8 glass because of camera restrictions which is no longer an issue with the new bodies

I use fast primes for Bokeh needs

I think F/2.8 zooms are a total waste of $$$ anymore. Im F/4 all the way for zooms, clean camera sensors and fast glass for bokeh needs.

To each his/her own. Photoshop is an utter waste of time when you can get something like that done in camera.

Im good with the f2.8 and f4 difference to pay more for it since I also want to rid myself of my 35 f1.4. Im also not paying $1500+ to be an early adopter. Ive got hundreds of events and weddings under my belt too so im coming from the same standpoint. For my use-case, the mk3 is a dream lens.

I never pay full price for any gear. In fact, all my gear is used. On top of that, i just upgraded to the 5dmk3 2 weeks ago. Now if thats not waiting a LONG time for a pricedrop then I dont know what is =).

So ill pay $1400 for this 16-35mk3...whenever that pricepoint used, hits. $1200 is the sweet spot actually. In the meanwhile, my 16-35mk1 and 35 f1.4 will truck along.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,199 posts
Gallery: 777 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 13470
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Nov 10, 2016 14:21 |  #54

The III is already dropping in price, just check in over at canonpricewatch. I didn't pay full price :)

Like OP, I'm buying the f2.8 variant to take the place of a wide prime and f/4 zoom. Only time will tell if it was the correct choice, but so far, so good.

To answer a previous question regarding AF @35mm in low light, the new lens performed flawlessly. No hiccups at all in the AF department.


Canon/Nikon/Fuji

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Classified
Member
38 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 114
Joined Oct 2016
     
Nov 10, 2016 16:30 as a reply to  @ umphotography's post |  #55

I can not use flash in that location, unfortunately, it would upset both the owner of the club and the visitors. It is a small venue, sometimes I stand so close to the artists, I shoot at minimal focus distance with a UWA-zoom...

Yes, it is expensive, here in Sweden, the 16-35 III costs about 25 500 SEK - about - 3000 $ (including 25 % VAT which I do not pay as a business, so more like 2400 $). My experience with the 16-35/4 IS is that the lens is slower to lock focus than both of the 16-35/2.8. I tried it during a hockey game last year but unfortunately, I had to replace it with the 16-35 II.

But I agree that you pay dearly to have access to that extra stop. I am a beginner in photography, started shooting in 2014 and I may not have bought this lens at full retail price if I had not started a small business in photography this fall as a fun thing to do during the weekends when I am not working in a "regular" employment.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
797 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 243
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Nov 11, 2016 11:41 |  #56

umphotography wrote in post #18180870 (external link)
I think F/2.8 zooms are a total waste of $$$ anymore. Im F/4 all the way for zooms, clean camera sensors and fast glass for bokeh needs.

Unless you need an f/2.8 zoom. Just sayin'.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,086 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Nov 11, 2016 12:34 |  #57

umphotography wrote in post #18180870 (external link)
Will bet if you took the exact shot side by side with both lens... you will not see $1500.00 worth of Bokeh improvement

especially with photoshops blur capabilities and masking capabilities

Granted its not the same. But with 10 yrs shooting weddings full time...I dont see enough and neither do my clients. I use F/2.8 glass because of camera restrictions which is no longer an issue with the new bodies

I use fast primes for Bokeh needs

I think F/2.8 zooms are a total waste of $$$ anymore. Im F/4 all the way for zooms, clean camera sensors and fast glass for bokeh needs.

I'm about maximum IQ and still this is primes. However the 16-35III imho is well worth the money and IS a prime quality lens. Just compare it to the 200 F2:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 (external link)

It's so close it's not even funny. This fact alone makes it worth it. The F4 IS is awesome and very sharp... BUT the 2.8 III is still better. It's truly amazing.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,882 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2687
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Nov 11, 2016 13:22 |  #58

Talley wrote in post #18181791 (external link)
I'm about maximum IQ and still this is primes. However the 16-35III imho is well worth the money and IS a prime quality lens. Just compare it to the 200 F2:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 (external link)

It's so close it's not even funny. This fact alone makes it worth it. The F4 IS is awesome and very sharp... BUT the 2.8 III is still better. It's truly amazing.


:-P:-P:-P:-P

You dont buy a 200 L to zoom in 200% and compare sharpness......Its all about the 200L look at F/2.0. If you want to really compare. then compare the bokeh at wide open on all the lens mentioned....while you at it, put a 135L in the test  :p. 200L is a specialty lens for portrait photographers and event photographers.

Im know we are getting a lot off base by a lot. Yes the 16-35 111 is very sharp... so is the F4 version....all the way across sharp.

I personally dont need to invest in F/2.8 glass when I have a sensor that can handle 25000 ISO and F/4 on a zoom is not all that far off from F/2.8 when you compare the bokeh. If you need F/2.8 to get the shots, then, I see the need. I would rather have the stop or two stops with the glass so fast primes do that, give far better bokeh, much cheaper and allow me to reinvest the $$ into a better sensor when it comes out.

straight off the camera with an 85mm 1.8-... a fast mid zoom cant get this look, a 70-200 can if you have enough room to use and can compress


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,086 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Nov 11, 2016 14:11 |  #59

umphotography wrote in post #18181840 (external link)
200L is a specialty lens for portrait photographers and event photographers.]

I'm just a dad.... please add this to your list  :p and I shot over 10k photos with it already for sports, dance recital, birthdays, swim, wildlife... and I use it for product photography also.

it's just a lens man.... you can use any lens for whatever.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kaitanium
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,964 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco USA
     
Nov 11, 2016 16:45 |  #60

Talley wrote in post #18181876 (external link)
you can use any lens for whatever.

Exactly, I believe this as well.

Case and point, tilt shifts. Werent they "made for architectural photographers?" Yet a billion wedding photogs use it for their shoots.




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

16,177 views & 20 likes for this thread
anyone with experience with the 16-35 2.8 III yet?
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 tnt2112
1089 guests, 359 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.