Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM - Coke Bottle

RX350 wrote in post #4397462
few more , again hand held
iso 800, f2.8

.

.

Those are soo amazing. Excellent shots indeed!

Those are awesome shots yes! I just got a 50mm 1.8, now I need something smaller for indoors/portraits, then a big telephoto hmmm.

What do you guys think about this comparison here? >>>
http://www.potd.com.au​/forum/viewtopic.php?t​=2631

I have been very happy with this lens. Here is an indoor existing light shot of Christmas decorations. The shot was a nearly 20MB JPEG (13 MB RAW) from my 5D. I really had to slice it to get it in here. Manual mode,16mm, iso 1600, f/4, no noise reduction.

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

amoergosum wrote in post #4415007
What do you guys think about this comparison here? >>>
http://www.potd.com.au​/forum/viewtopic.php?t​=2631

If you read the whole thread, the tester discovers the 16-35II he borrowed is defective and says all results are invalid.

mebailey wrote in post #4422042
If you read the whole thread, the tester discovers the 16-35II he borrowed is defective and says all results are invalid.

you're right....thanks for the information.

RX350 wrote in post #4397462
few more , again hand held
iso 800, f2.8

.

.

Superb set of pics.

Well, due in part to this thread, and other recommendations, I've just placed an order for this lens to support a planned trip to Glacier National Park and Banff National Park this summer. While I have the 17-40 f/4L already, I have another photo project this winter (indoor studio shots) where this lens will be more appropriate, so it will serve double duty.

Congrats Mark. I have a feeling you are going to love the lens. I know I did/do.


Hatch

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #4425361
Well, due in part to this thread, and other recommendations, I've just placed an order for this lens to support a planned trip to Glacier National Park and Banff National Park this summer. While I have the 16-40 f/4L already, I have another photo project this winter (indoor studio shots) where this lens will be more appropriate, so it will serve double duty.

Congrats, Mark, I think it does the 5D proud -- I don't have the 16-40, so I con't compare there, but this is a nice lens!

tonylong wrote in post #4426020
Congrats, Mark, I think it does the 5D proud -- I don't have the 16-40, so I con't compare there, but this is a nice lens!

Well, I mean the 17-40, which is a nice lens, but I got it because I didn't care for the flare and unsharp corners of the original 16-35 f/2.8. With the improvements in the MKII version, I felt like it was finally time to upgrade.

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #4426087
Well, I mean the 17-40, which is a nice lens, but I got it because I didn't care for the flare and unsharp corners of the original 16-35 f/2.8. With the improvements in the MKII version, I felt like it was finally time to upgrade.

Congratulations on the lens. I think you will like it.

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #4426087
Well, I mean the 17-40, which is a nice lens, but I got it because I didn't care for the flare and unsharp corners of the original 16-35 f/2.8. With the improvements in the MKII version, I felt like it was finally time to upgrade.

Heh! I figured you meant the 17-40, but sometimes I make dumb/uninformed comments and later regret them!

could anyone post some more indoor pictures?

Lord_Malone wrote in post #4401620
Nice images! The Mark I version was a great lens and a blast to use, but I only used it at 16mm or 24mm, so I'm opting for a UWA prime instead. If I had to choose between the two 16-35Ls now I'd go for the Mark II version since I've gone back to shooting FF.

I'm trying to figure out if I should swap my 16-35L mk I for the mk II or go for the 14 mk II as I tend to only use the 16mm and 24mm myself... The 14L and 24L sure is the expensive route. Hmm.