Impressed with my new 16-35 II!

newworld666 wrote in post #9012629
I don't feel that silly, they are about same prices and covers same situations and about same generation ..
I would say, last year, I was wondering to get this zoom instead the prime... when I see these results, let's say I dont't regret my choice.. ...
The title of this thread was "Impressed with my new ....." .. I am not .. and I don't consider that the prime opens at 1.4 ...

have you ever used the zoom or are you just justifying your purchase? does your prime do 16mm?

i have owned the zoom for about 18 months and i wouldn't trade it for three primes.

ed rader

newworld666 wrote in post #9013031
I have got a zenitar 16mmF2.8 which is perfect .. ... for the use I have.
I don't use that wide so much .. just a small test (it just wanted to see if I could correct it with ptlens)

http://photos.corbi.eu …67/623490073_cL​vrP-X3.jpg

how does that bolshevik lens AF? how about weathersealing ? yeah .....for your uses .

ed rader

16-35 is such a nice lens.

I've been trying to install DXO Optics pro all morning and now I've found it's incompatible with Snow Leopard (hence the problems). I'll have to try this once they get their act together. Looks like they use some kind of paranoid software protection scheme. Ah well, they can't gain a customer if the software doesn't work. I'm not going to revert back to 10.5 just to try out this program.

Back to lenses -
I am going to try to rent the Zeiss 21mm and / or the TSE II 24mm for some upcoming trips to Death Valley, Joshua Tree and Valley of Fire SP. Did some more shots last night with the 16-35 II. It produces star lens flares with lights at night it seems. Still haven't had nearly as much time to play with it as I'd like. Working on a saturday... ugh.

-K

Sorry about the installation problems. I know they are a little behind on the Mac releases (v6 just came out and it's not going to be available on the Mac for a few months.) It's worth a try if they eventually get the compatibility straightened out. Here are some shots with my 16-35 mk II @ Ricketts Glen State Park and surrounding State Game Lands, shot RAW and processed through DxO.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

My 16-35mk2 is sharper at the center than my Siggie 12-24 but not at the edges. The Canon has been back for re-calibration.

The Canon has much, much better control of CA etc. though - and a more natural colour overall.

I won't be parting with the 16-35 though.

I just sold my 16-35mkii to finance the purchase of a 24mkii Even though the 16-35 was a great lens but I just love the prime.
now the 24 doesn't do 16mm very well but on the other hand, the 16-35 doesn't do 1.4 that well either.

iqbal624 wrote in post #9014756
I just sold my 16-35mkii to finance the purchase of a 24mkii Even though the 16-35 was a great lens but I just love the prime.
now the 24 doesn't do 16mm very well but on the other hand, the 16-35 doesn't do 1.4 that well either.

if 24mm were my widest lens for my FF camera i'd hang myself....but that's just me .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #9014771
if 24mm were my widest lens for my FF camera i'd hang myself....but that's just me .

ed rader

isnt hanging a terrible way of taking good photo ?

ed rader wrote in post #9013702
how does that bolshevik lens AF? how about weathersealing ? yeah .....for your uses .

ed rader

Fisheye 16mm -> AF ... not really an issue and no CA ... and even cheaper than just a piece of sofware like DXO.
I can say that in 6 months I never used a 16mm for anything else than just testing ..

Anyway ... I am not a defender of the zenitar or anthing ele..

ed rader wrote in post #9013695
have you ever used the zoom or are you just justifying your purchase? does your prime do 16mm?

i have owned the zoom for about 18 months and i wouldn't trade it for three primes.

ed rader

I never used the zoom ....the discussion was about the sample picture of that 16-35 .. I was just really surprised with CA near the center -> that's all.
For me it's important, but for other people it seems not.


Many people loves zooms .. and I never use any, even if I bought on ebay a 70-300DO.
It's not good or bad, it's just a question of habit, I could spend 20 years with a A1+ 85L1.2 without any trouble.

newworld666 wrote in post #9018007
I could spend 20 years with a A1+ 85L1.2 without any trouble.

If you think the CA is bad on the 16-35 there is no way you would like the 85F1.2

iqbal624 wrote in post #9014756
I just sold my 16-35mkii to finance the purchase of a 24mkii Even though the 16-35 was a great lens but I just love the prime.
now the 24 doesn't do 16mm very well but on the other hand, the 16-35 doesn't do 1.4 that well either.

I would say most people who have the 16-35 use it for landscapes and you don't need f1.4 for that

Yeah, once you take out the CA, it's a beauty of a lens. Still haven't convinced myself it's worth the extra thousand bucks over the 17-40, but I'm happy.

malla1962 wrote in post #9018773
I would say most people who have the 16-35 use it for landscapes and you don't need f1.4 for that

Of course it can be an issue not to have f1.4 for a wide angle
I use it indoor pubs, church, museum, family, but in the night outdoor too ... I never use flash ... and I don't like to get ghost of walking people on the photos so minimum speed is 1/125..