16-35mm L mk1: how does it compare?

[LongLensPhotography]

I think I will sooner or later add an L-UWA to my collection. Currently I use a very sharp Tokina 12-24mm mostly around 20mm, and it works quite well. I would really like to expand my range higher up to 35/40mm and also get slightly wider with a single lens. It has be very sharp by f/4 (or at the very least 5.6) from corner to corner.

I am considering 16-35mm mk1 but can't find good descriptive reviews. What is good or bad about it? How does it compare with mk2, 17-35mm and 17-40? I could probably throw in Tamron 17-35mm in to the mix as well. Not interested in Sigma at all. Filter thread is a must.

I quite like the fact mk1 has 77mm filter thread vs 82mm on mk2, and is cheaper 2nd hand. What are the options for 10 stop filter, and lee adapter with 82mm?

On the other hand I don't want to end up with expensive inferior lens to Tokina. Sharpness, distortion, colours, vignetting and flare are all important. I have a limited budget so any saving is welcome, but without compromising the IQ.

Please share your experience if you used any of these.

 

[cuthbert]

the-digital-picture.com has reviews of both the old and new version, along with crops:

(old): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

(new): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Looks like there is a big difference in the corners with the older lens (wide open at 16mm anyway):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[arad85]

Looks like there is a big difference in the corners with the older lens (wide open at 16mm anyway):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Not as big when you compare it on the same camera: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...412&Sample=0&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (yes, it's better but not as "better" when you view it on the newer 1Ds vs the older 1Ds.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Any more views - what would you pick? Or shall I pick the first one that ends "cheap" on ebay and take it from there?

 

[HoppyUK]

Check Ken Rockwell's comparison images with the 16-35 Mk1 - it's a flarey thing.

Unless you must have f/2.8, 17-40 seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[DemiLion]

What Hoppy said and it's the main reason that I went for the 17-40 as well as it being half the price of the MkII 16-35 (the only other one worth really considering).

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Ok so it's between mk2 and 17-40 then. I did want to have a less distorted 16mm, and thought about shooting aurora Borealis at some stage... but its a lot of money. Unless 17-40mm is fine for that?

 

[arad85]

and thought about shooting aurora Borealis at some stage

Why not hire something if you want a faster lens for a specific occasion? Something like the 14 2.8L II or the 24 1.4 L II are both less than £100 for a week or hiring the 16-35 is only £65/week (lensesforhire)...

 

[P-E]

I did a quick test when I had both the original 16-35 2.8 and the MKII......

16-35 2.8L vs 16.35 2.8L MKII

 

[HoppyUK]

I did a quick test when I had both the original 16-35 2.8 and the MKII......

16-35 2.8L vs 16.35 2.8L MKII

With respect, that's a good example of why shooting brick walls or other flat targets is unreliable. You get the same problem with most published lens tests, they're just unreliable with wide angles if you're checking edge sharpness.

You're shooting at very close distance, which means that unless the lens has a perfectly flat field, the edges are going to be less sharp at low f/numbers. Very few lenses like that have a flat field, because it's hard to achieve optically and (unless you shoot brick walls as a subject) has almost zero relevance in practise. Additionally, in terms of optimum sharpness many lenses are not at their best at very close distance.

And lastly, in that example the camera is not quite square to the target - it's pointing down slightly and the bricks at the top are larger than those at the bottom.