Upgrade Path

[NFLD Stephen]

To complete my kit, I have started leaning toward the EF 16-35 II. Potentially, it could be used for both UWA and nightscape shots. But, I have rarely seen such divergent analysis results from review sites for any lens and you don't have to search too far to find a number of people spending a lot of time complaining about it's soft edges, coma, and general lack of sharpness. It is almost as disparaged as the 24-105....

So, my question to those of you that have the EF 16-35 II....is it really that bad? Or is it actually a really good UWA zoom and at least a pretty good lens for nightscapes/milky way shots?

Brant;

I recently went through a similar search and ended up with the 16-35 II. I strongly considered the 17-40 as well, but settled on the 16-35 II primarily for the faster f2.8 vs f4. Partly this was just for general lower light use (I take this when travelling so personally don't want to take several primes), but I was also hoping this could double for nightscapes (haven't done many, but interested to try more).

After having this lens for a few months (including one month of nonstop travel), I have to say I'm quite pleased. Overall image quality is excellent, but being a UWA I really need to watch for the perspective distortion at the wide end. Admittedly, most of my usage is at around f8 so I could do with the 17-40 most of the time, but I like the option of f2.8 when I need it. Question is whether that alone is worth the money...

As for your specific question on nightscapes, I've tried a few night shots and there is noticeable coma wide open at the edges when viewed at 100%. Not too bad if viewing smaller and it decreases when stopped down (pretty much unnoticeable by f5.6), but that somewhat decreases it's usefulness for milkyway and nightscape shots. Here is a quick example at f2.8 (note that the focus was off a bit for this shot). View at 100% on flickr to see the coma effect on the stars, particularly in the upper right.



kauai_148 by NFLD Stephen, on Flickr

Hope this helps. But in any case, I don't think there is a wrong choice with the lenses you are debating.

Stephen

[conropl]

Brant:

For milkyway shots - the wider the lens, the longer the exposure you can use before you start seeing star movement. The rule of thumb for the maximum shutter speed to produce sharp pinpoint stars is: Tv(max) = 500/(Focal Length). For example, at 16mm, the max shutter speed is around 31 seconds which is probably do-able at f/2.8, but now you are wide open with the 16-35mm where the lens is not at its best. For a 24mm lens, the max shutter speed would be 21 seconds which I can typically do at f/1.8 - f/2 with my 24mm f/1.4L and it is not wide open (good thing). I guess my point is: If you are going to use a lens that can only get to f/2.8, then it had better be pretty wide, and it should be good wide open (rokion 14mm f/2.8 seems to hold some good reguard wide open).

Not living in the land of great mountain views and other large vistas, I find 24mm on full frame to be pretty wide; and in many cases, to wide. I thought about the 16-35mm, but for the landscapes I shoot I think it would be too wide. I would like it for the occasional need of an ultra wide, but it just would not get used enough. And I still like my 24-105mm... in fact, I like it even more with the FF. I have actually been thinking about the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art lens. It would be a pretty good focal length for me and it is good wide open... so I could get to the 15 second max shutter speed wide open for milkyway shots.

Having said all that... I have seen a lot of really great shots with the 16-35mm. I am not sure you go to wrong picking one up.

Pat

[Kayaker72]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. Work has gotten a busier, so I've had to put in longer days Monday and Tuesday leaving me with less time to evaluate. I did start moving off of test charts and reviews to looking at photos on flickr for each lens. This has lead to one observation that when I think "ultra-wide" the shots I am trying to emulate seem to be in the 14-16 mm range. So I am now looking at 14 mm a little more. This brings in the Samyang/Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 in addition to the Canon 14 mm f/2.8 II (tough to agrue with magic ). I am also looking at the Sigma 35 f/1.4, as Pat suggested. I, like I am sure everyone else, has been tempted by this lens in the past. More for low light indoor photography/and DoF, but I do sometimes use this focal length for landscape/waterfalls. It may also be a better low-light indoor pair to the 70-200 f/2.8 than the 50 f/1.4 I currently use. It also had less coma than the 24/25 mm lenses. The Sigma/Samyang combo would also allow me to save some money away for a later purchase.

Anyway, I didn't want to go too long without thank you all for your input. I am trying to have this resolved in a week or so. Thanks again.

[Dave Throgmartin]

For landscape photography I'd prefer using a zoom. I don't believe either 14mm takes filters all that easily. If you're shooting f/8 - f/11 then the 17-40 is likely good enough unless you need f/2.8.

There's a huge difference between 17mm and 40mm and having the choice of focal length quickly available to you is greatly valuable.

As a bonus the 17-40 is fantastic against flare.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

Just a quick update, but as part of this process, I decided to try the Rokinon (Samyang) 14 mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC. This is the current model and is an improvement over the Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 IF ED MC (released 2009). I only bring this up as I wasn't aware that there were two recent models floating around. For awhile I have seen photos taken with this lens that I really liked. After reading about some quality control issues, I brought two of the lenses in from amazon. Sure enough, one of them within 2 minutes of testing was vastly inferior to the other.

But the main reason for my post is the main knock I've always heard about this lens was the distortion (other than lack of AF). Before buying I found this link about a profile for Lightroom for the Samyang 14 UMC. Adobe themselves don't provide one.

Below are the results:

Brick wall....no correction for distortion:

Same picture using the Lightroom profile provided for in the link:

While not perfect, the profile does seem to correct the distortion pretty well without too much loss.

If I find I really like 14 mm, I may someday upgrade to the Canon for AF and a few other things. But, for now, I'll see if I like the focal length for $325.

BTW...here is a quick one I took from my front lawn....

[ahab1372]

+1 on the Samyang/Rokinon.
I ended up with two (one Samyang, one Rokinon), and the second one seemed to be slightly better at infinity focus. It seems the first one doesn't let focus to infinity completely.
All in all it can be a lot of fun for little money