16-35 f/2.8L I verses 16-35 f/2.8L II

I have had the 16-35 f/2.8L I for years. I just bought the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

I took shots at 16mm F/2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, and 22 and then 35mm at the same apertures with both lenses.

At f/2.8 the ver. I is softer at the edges and even a little softer in the middle.
At f/8 they are closer and at f/11 and up there is only a little difference and only at the edges.

I have decided to keep the new one although it is a tough decision.

Is it worth the $500. for the upgrade? I'm not sure. (Even the 82mm CP costs over $100. more.)

I plan to get the TS-E 17 for when I have the luxury of time to putz around with it for special shots. I will use the 16-35 f/2.8L for quick shots and travel.

Am I crazy?

Oops, I posted this earlier on the Camera section!

so your going to keep both bodies and use which one for quick shots and travel the version 1 or 2 ? I picked my ver.2 about a month or so ago and found that the new size filter 82mm cpl Kaesemann version is like you said 100.00 more at 277.97. Now i have a lot of the 77mm filters and think maybe i will downgrade to the ver.1 just for the savings in filters i won’t need to replace. Are you thinking maybe version one isn’t that bad and worth the savings?
Roger

Can't you use step up rings (77mm-->82mm) They work great on my Zeiss 21. Saves a lot of money

Tmuussoni wrote in post #15921733
Can't you use step up rings (77mm-->82mm) They work great on my Zeiss 21. Saves a lot of money

Sounds like you'd need a step-down ring. I believe the OP has 77mm filters, but the new 16-35 vII takes 82mm. There would be horrible vignetting and pretty pointless to use a 77mm filter on it.

How about just buying less expensive filters. I think a good multi coated CPL costs about $80. Do you really use a cpl that often on an UW?

the version II also has better microcontrast, and is less flare prone, and is weather sealed. you can get a marumi super dhg, a great filter, for around 75 dollars. I also have to agree with Ed, I rarely end up using the filter b/c it leads to uneven sky. but it would be usful with greens to diminish reflection.

I use a CPL quite a bit. B+W 82mm slim MRC $241.
B+W is all I use. I had one Tiffen years ago and it was not very good.

Lenstip has a very good cp filter comparison, which ranks the marumi very highly. having used it, I can vouch for it, over my hoya pro.

Tapeman wrote in post #15923116
I use a CPL quite a bit. B+W 82mm slim MRC $241.
B+W is all I use. I had one Tiffen years ago and it was not very good.

Well, yes, Tiffen filters are the worst "brand name" filter to use, IMHO - lousy "glass" and worse coatings. OTOH, the Marumi filters are almost as good as or just as good as the B+Ws and Hoyas, based on the various review sites out there.

I would suggest you try a Marumi and see if you like it, and if not, sell it for 75-80% cost. (That number is not scientific, just based on my impressions from browsing the classifieds for filters over time.) They seem to hold their value as good as any other good filter.

shinksma

Already have the B+W. Might try Marumi if I need additional filters. I have 4 CPLs and 2 UVs.

Forget them both, if you tested them all like I did and read a bit reviews, you'll end up with Tokina 16-28 2.8 as only non Canon lens as Canon simply hasn't got the Nikon 14-24 version, only Tokina has it's corner to corner sharpness.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #15928613
Forget them both, if you tested them all like I did and read a bit reviews, you'll end up with Tokina 16-28 2.8 as only non Canon lens as Canon simply hasn't got the Nikon 14-24 version, only Tokina has it's corner to corner sharpness.

as someone who owns both the nikon 14-24, and canon 16-35II, I prefer canon.

the 16-35L II just has to be the most dissed lens the dissers never used !

ed rader wrote in post #15929016
the 16-35L II just has to be the most dissed lens the dissers never used !

Quoted for truth!