First shot w/ new EF 16-35 f/2.8L II

[Tom Wertman]

All I can say so far is this lens lives up to its many reviews. I own several L lenses and the build quality of this one is superb.


Tom


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/_5F00_006-copy.jpg[/img]

[Tom Wertman]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/_5F00_008-copy2.jpg[/img]


Here are two from the wide end.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/_5F00_018-copy.jpg[/img]

[bouwy]

Very nice Tom. Have you got the shooting details. Love to see it. Regards, wally

[Tom Wertman]

Have you got the shooting details

#1 1/40sec, f/11, ISO 400, f/l 35mm


#2 1/60sec, f/16, ISO 400, f/l 16mm


#3 1/250sec, f/4, ISO 100, f/l 16mm


Thanks,


Tom

[Chris White]

Great quality Tom. What were the settings you used?


I am currently looking at the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. It fits a little better in my current budget to go wide on my 5D II. I do not know how much more IQ difference I would see, but I realize the EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM is better.


Chris

[Tom Wertman]

I do not know how much more IQ difference I would see, but I realize the EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM is better.

Not necessarily. I owned the 17-40 but sold it. Sharpness between the two lenses is the same. Color and contrast were a bit high for my taste on the 17-40, but it could have been just my copy too. I occasionally shoot weddings and since I also own the 24-105 at f/4 I needed a faster wide angle. For most of my wedding shots I was using the ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 on a 40D and it was fine. But I went FF and got a 5D and sold all my ef-s lenses. 5d for low light indoor church shots where flash is forbidden is awesome. I still use the 40D for my sons hockey games with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I find this to be a very good combination for what I shoot. If the 17-40 is in your budget get it as you can't go wrong. It is a fine lens. Unless of course you need to shoot indoors under poor lighting conditions.

[Fast Glass]

Sharpness between the two lenses is the same.

Was that on a FF or a 1.6, based on my research the 16-35mm II is pretty much the same in the center but noticebly better in the corners mostly at wider apertures. But sample variation can makea big differance too.


John.

[Tom Wertman]

based on my research the 16-35mm II is pretty much the same in the center but noticebly better in the corners

Are you asking about sharpness or light fall off?


Tom

[Fast Glass]

Sharpness.Especially in the extreme corners that not even Bryan's crops go.


John.

[Chris White]

Tom,

Sharpness between the two lenses is the same. Color and contrast were a bit high for my taste on the 17-40, but it could have been just my copy too.

Thank you. Color and contrast are easily corrected for me either with a camera adjustment or DDP after the shot.

If the 17-40 is in your budget get it as you can't go wrong. It is a fine lens. Unless of course you need to shoot indoors under poor lighting conditions.

I have the 17-55 for my 50D as well as the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS so I have indoor/low light pretty well covered. I think I am acquiring a pretty sweet glass collection and I am very happy with my bodies with the addition of the 5D II. I am looking for something wider for landscapes and tripod use. Before the addition of the 5D II I was looking at the EF-S 10-22. However, with the addition of the 5D II it seems foolish to me to not get the glass to use that beautiful full frame CMOS sensor. Add in that the 17-40 actually costs a little less and comes with the hood and is L glass, it is a "no-brainer".


As soon as I get the cost covered -- it will be soon -- I will order the 17-40.


Chris