EF 16-35mm L Mk II opinions please

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
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(y)
 
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.
 
Thanks Stewart, very handy link and bookmarked! (y)
 
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.
 
WeddingHack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks WH!

Would you mind posting an example sometime:nuts:

(y)
 
WeddingHack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Anton Roland said:
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!
Click to expand...

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
 
WeddingHack said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think mine does something similar - see here:

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.
 
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

070914_011.jpg


and one at 3.2

070908_034.jpg
 
Well this tells me EXACTLY what I wanted to know.

Thanks WeddingHack, MarkyH and PE(y)(y)(y)

:D
 
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(y)


And a few nuts, of course but we still love you Marcel:naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top