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

Anyone with experience with the 16-35 mkIII yet? Curious about your general comments on focusing speed and accuracy (and which body you have that makes it so). Even more curious how this stacks up to the mkII or heck even the mkI. I know its a brand new lens that barely hit the shelves.

Kai.
I am heading to New York today for PhotoPlus. Hopefully they may have new 16-35 f/2.8 III along with the new 24-105 f/4 L IS II. Hearing all the reviews, it sounds like it will be like the 16-35 f/4 L IS in terms of improvements.

I'm waiting to sell my Tamron 15-30mm before I jump on board, but have lots of experience in reading everything that's come out on this lens so far. Everything looks spectacular. Comparisons are up here.

There's a good review at Photography Blog. The only complaint from everything I've read is the price.

Nice thanks for the info! Yes price is a joke. Their new offerings seem to have a higher and higher price ceiling!

Seems like they came out with the III pretty fast after the II or has time passed so fast that I just didnt notice!

Looking forward to what you find at Photoplus, Nick!

TDP has posted a review on this lens,
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Its better than any other 16-35 Canon in existence. However it lacks IS which is why I will probably never get it.

It appears to be better than ANY UWA zoom currently on the market. I'd like to see better comparison against the Tamron 15-30mm with a newer body, which is arguably better than anything else for Canon at f/2.8, and a comparison with Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 that my friends rave about.

I'd consider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 to be among the best as well, but the range is pretty small in comparison.

after my dealings a long time ago with my sigma 70-200, i think i personally prefer to just stick with canon lenses even if i have to pay more.

3rd party lenses, while good i dont doubt, dont have the same resale value or attention either down the road.

kaitanium wrote in post #18162021
Nice thanks for the info! Yes price is a joke. Their new offerings seem to have a higher and higher price ceiling!

Seems like they came out with the III pretty fast after the II or has time passed so fast that I just didnt notice!

Looking forward to what you find at Photoplus, Nick!

Could be worse, You could have a Nikon and want a new 70-200/2.8 VR3 for $2800. That's only $850 more than Canon's.

I may or may not end up with this lens. Currently it THE BEST uwa on the market and it's sharpness is simply unreal. It's literally as sharp as my 200 F2. This thing is the real deal and yes I feel it can command a price at this level of performance. Performance is not cheap and the previous model becomes a real deal. Sharp center and OK midrange/poor corners but hey it's all what you want.

My thing is if I had to own any zoom at all... I'd probably have to have a 24-70 as it'd be more useful to me than a uwa but I do know many people where the UWA is the primary lens and this thing is killer

The Tamron 15-30 is no slouch either... mine is for sale but only because I'm moving to primes only. I also want that 12mm 2.8 Laowa.... I mean if I'm going to go wide I might as well do it right.

only reason i want this is lens is to replace the 16-35 mk1 and the 35L that are in my bag with just 1 solution that performs most solidly at the 35mm end (since i dont use the wider end much). My 35L is awesome already so if im getting a replacement its got to be equal or better.

one of the reasons i ask is that zoom lenses tend to not perform as well as the fixed lenses do. If the mkIII can perform at 35mm just as well as the standalone 35L (mk1) then im totally sold.

kaitanium wrote in post #18162275
only reason i want this is lens is to replace the 16-35 mk1 and the 35L that are in my bag with just 1 solution that performs most solidly at the 35mm end (since i dont use the wider end much). My 35L is awesome already so if im getting a replacement its got to be equal or better.

one of the reasons i ask is that zoom lenses tend to not perform as well as the fixed lenses do. If the mkIII can perform at 35mm just as well as the standalone 35L (mk1) then im totally sold.

When comparing these at f1.4, I am going to put my money on the 35L mkI.

too bad i dont use anything lower than 2.8. And if i did for some reason, got my 1.2s to do that job well.

Same boat.. contemplating getting this mkIII in order to to consolidate my 24L II and 16-35 f/4. "Consolidate" is the important word here because my current lenses are fantastic, so I don't want to say I'm replacing them. Sharpness isn't my main criteria, but being able to shoot astro and indoor event (maybe paid) are. I've come to terms with letting go of the 24L, but the IS and smaller size/weight of the 16-35 f/4 are making this a very difficult decision because it is one of my travel lenses.

And that price

Talley wrote in post #18162266
I may or may not end up with this lens. Currently it THE BEST uwa on the market and it's sharpness is simply unreal. It's literally as sharp as my 200 F2. This thing is the real deal and yes I feel it can command a price at this level of performance. Performance is not cheap and the previous model becomes a real deal. Sharp center and OK midrange/poor corners but hey it's all what you want.

My thing is if I had to own any zoom at all... I'd probably have to have a 24-70 as it'd be more useful to me than a uwa but I do know many people where the UWA is the primary lens and this thing is killer

The Tamron 15-30 is no slouch either... mine is for sale but only because I'm moving to primes only. I also want that 12mm 2.8 Laowa.... I mean if I'm going to go wide I might as well do it right.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 70-200mm f/2.8 II are my most used lenses (I do lots of event photography). I'd used the 16-35mm f/4 (too slow for me a lot of the time) before this summer when I picked up the Tamron 15-30mm. The Tamron is definitely no slouch, way better than the 16-35mm f/2.8 II and almost as good as the 16-35mm f/4. But it's a heavy beast and won't take conventional filters. Both are serious issues with me. It's hard to justify an additional $1100-1200 just for this but I have. The "III" will round out my bag for years to come.

While photographing performances I use 4-5 lenses, but for crowd photos & portraits at shows I do use the UWA primarily. I've missed 35mm, looking forward to having it back.

Roger Cicala of lensrentals has posted optical tests on this lens and proclaimed it the best wide angle zoom he has encountered! http://www.lensrentals​.com Look under "recent articles"

Keith