not much difference between .40 and .32. But going from 77 to 82, that wouls make sense.....
Mar 30, 2007 23:30 | #16 not much difference between .40 and .32. But going from 77 to 82, that wouls make sense..... Gear List? My gear is bigger than yours? Just shoot have fun...
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DenZ Senior Member  396 posts Joined Jan 2007 More info | Mar 31, 2007 13:15 | #17 Maybe they're adding more surface area for the sweet spot and giving more glass to straighten out the edges. BLOG
LOG IN TO REPLY |
edrader "I am not the final word"  More info | Mar 31, 2007 13:28 | #18 Mark_Cohran wrote in post #2956639  I've been thinking about upgrading from my 17-40, so I'm interested in how well the 16-35 MKII is received. I'd love to see the pics. Mark i'll bet it's a humdinger Mark and will edge out the 17-40L as it should. http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
col4bin Goldmember  2,264 posts Joined Feb 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA More info | Mar 31, 2007 14:43 | #19 $1,599 is a hefty prive tag. i am considering this lens as well but will hait to see some pictures and read a few reviews. Frank
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mebailey Goldmember 1,992 posts Likes: 28 Joined Jul 2005 Location: USA More info | The weather has been bad here today so my picture opportunities have been limited. I took a few car shots with the 16-35II and compared to 24-70 both at f 2.8 and 28mm. The first shot is the 16-35 followed by the 24-70. Wish I had a mk1 to compare rather than a different lens.  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
calicokat Cream of the Crop  14,720 posts Likes: 2 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Southern California More info | Mar 31, 2007 20:26 | #21 Congrats on the lens, are you the first to own one here "You are going to fall off a cliff trying to get a better shot someday"- My hopeful and loving wife
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mebailey Goldmember 1,992 posts Likes: 28 Joined Jul 2005 Location: USA More info | I also did some center crops. I was surprised to see the 16-35 was clearly sharper in the center at f2.8. Again the first is the 16-35 followed by the 24-70.  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
whakojacko Member 166 posts Joined Feb 2007 Location: San Jose, CA/Pittsburgh, PA More info | Mar 31, 2007 20:33 | #23 mebailey wrote in post #2963041 I also did some center crops. I was surprised to see the 16-35 was clearly sharper in the center at f2.8. Again the first is the 16-35 followed by the 24-70. I hope that dust is on youre sensor not the car 40D, 400D, 35L, 70-200 F4L IS and junk. flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mebailey Goldmember 1,992 posts Likes: 28 Joined Jul 2005 Location: USA More info | Mar 31, 2007 20:43 | #24 whakojacko wrote in post #2963063 I hope that dust is on youre sensor not the car  .Seriously, were those shot at 24mm (I assume) or 35mm? Someone on fm posted several sample pictures http://imageevent.com/devine/1635mkiisamplepix Is the vignetting @16mm f/2.8 usual for this class of lenses? Im not knowledgeable in such things. Otherwise, looks pretty good Both were shot at 28mm because my 24-70 does not shoot very good images at 24mm. Unfortunately the dust and the bugs are on the car.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mebailey Goldmember 1,992 posts Likes: 28 Joined Jul 2005 Location: USA More info | Mar 31, 2007 20:47 | #25 whakojacko wrote in post #2963063 Is the vignetting @16mm f/2.8 usual for this class of lenses? Im not knowledgeable in such things. Otherwise, looks pretty good Yes vignetting is common at 16mm, large fs, on a FF camera. Here is 16mm, f2.8, on a 5D.  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mebailey Goldmember 1,992 posts Likes: 28 Joined Jul 2005 Location: USA More info | Mar 31, 2007 21:30 | #26 calicokat wrote in post #2963035 Congrats on the lens, are you the first to own one here Thanks, I was wanting to pick one of these up when the mkII was anounced.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DenZ Senior Member 396 posts Joined Jan 2007 More info | Mar 31, 2007 22:45 | #27 How cute! At 16mm, that Porsche begins looking like a tadpole BLOG
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mebailey Goldmember 1,992 posts Likes: 28 Joined Jul 2005 Location: USA More info | Thought it might be good to compare edge sharpness since this is the major reason for the upgrade of the 16-35. I will show a 100% edge crop of the 16-35mm first and the 24-70 second. Both shots were at f5.6 and 28mm. To me the 24-70 is the clear winner of edge sharpness. Really miss having a mk1 for this comparison though...  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AeroSmith Goldmember  More info | Mar 31, 2007 23:06 | #29 I pre-ordered one from Amazon. I'm curious to see how it compares to the mk I on a FF camera. Josh Smith
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mebailey Goldmember 1,992 posts Likes: 28 Joined Jul 2005 Location: USA More info | Mar 31, 2007 23:07 | #30 AeroSmith wrote in post #2963784 I pre-ordered one from Amazon. I'm curious to see how it compares to the mk I on a FF camera. I will be anxious to see your results! Just don't sell your mk1 before you can compare them!!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is AlainPre 1763 guests, 138 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
