EF 16-35mm L Mk II opinions please

[antonroland]

Hello all

I am thinking of getting this lens as all the primes are beyond my budget.

How sharp is this lens and is it really THAT MUCH better than the Mk I?

Thanks:thumbs:

[StewartR]

Anton, it seems unlikely that many people will have tested the Mk I and Mk II back-to-back. You'd probably get better information Googling for reviews such as this one (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx).

[antonroland]

Thanks Stewart, very handy link and bookmarked! :thumbs:

[WeddingHack]

I've owned both, the MKI was a dog, I didn't dare use it below f4 as everything around the edges of the image turned to mush - not bokeh, mush. Do not get a MKI.

The MKII is a massive improvement, sharper, more contrasty and I trust it wide open. I use it all the time.

[antonroland]

I've owned both, the MKI was a dog, I didn't dare use it below f4 as everything around the edges of the image turned to mush - not bokeh, mush. Do not get a MKI.

The MKII is a massive improvement, sharper, more contrasty and I trust it wide open. I use it all the time.

Thanks WH!

Would you mind posting an example sometime:nuts:

:thumbs:

[antonroland]

I've owned both, the MKI was a dog, I didn't dare use it below f4 as everything around the edges of the image turned to mush - not bokeh, mush. Do not get a MKI.

The MKII is a massive improvement, sharper, more contrasty and I trust it wide open. I use it all the time.

I shoot on FF bodies and so the main question in my mind is:

Would I need any wide prime along with this lens?

P.S.

I love the images on your site!

[WeddingHack]

I shoot on FF bodies and so the main question in my mind is:

Would I need any wide prime along with this lens?

P.S.

I love the images on your site!

Cheers :)

At weddings, I use the 24 1.4L for most of the day on a 5D, switching to the 16-35 when I need an especially wide shot, or there's more light to play with.

I'll try find some 16-35 examples for you.

Duncan

[marky_h]

I've owned both, the MKI was a dog, I didn't dare use it below f4 as everything around the edges of the image turned to mush - not bokeh, mush. Do not get a MKI.

The MKII is a massive improvement, sharper, more contrasty and I trust it wide open. I use it all the time.

I think mine does something similar - see here:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3195/2296183497_4384c76dc6_o.jpg

That said, I use it rarely below about f/5.6. It softens up a bit beyond f/16 too, but in between it's a lovely lens. Canon Bob has experience (I think) of the 17-35 L and the 16-35 Mk II.

[WeddingHack]

Yep, mush on the edges. Not so bad on a shot like that, but at a wedding if you had people / structures at the edge of the frame it was very unattractive.

Here's a MKII 2.8 shot, no mush

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/070914_011.jpg

and one at 3.2

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/070908_034.jpg

[P-E]

I did a quick test here (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=29199) with the both lenses.

[antonroland]

Well this tells me EXACTLY what I wanted to know.

Thanks WeddingHack, MarkyH and PE:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

:D

[StewartR]

Anton, it seems unlikely that many people will have tested the Mk I and Mk II back-to-back.I did a quick test here (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=29199) with the both lenses.Oh well, just shows how much I know!

That's a pretty impressive test, by the way, P-E!

[antonroland]

LOL @ StewartR

Just goes to show again, this place is a gold mine of wealth in knowledge and full of a lot of wonderful peeps:thumbs:


And a few nuts, of course but we still love you Marcel:naughty: