|
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
blackhawk This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control Total Likes: 3996 likes
UER newbie
| | | | Re: Canon Wide Angle lenses < Reply # 3 on 1/3/2018 8:11 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by lonewolf34 So...I'm in the market for a wide angle lens (Full Frame). I've primarily had my eye on the 16-35mm. Originally I wanted the 2.8, but not I think the F4 is the better option, especially comparing the price tags of the F4 vs the vIII (or even 2nd gen). Anyone here use the F4 version? How well does it do in our type of work (low light/no light)? Is it really worth the extra money for the 2.8 w/out IS?
| You want fast glass. Used is also an option. One lost f/stop is a lot... ideally I would stop down to f/5.6-8 0 for best resolution on the 16-35 first generation. Not sure about now but then the cam was optimized for fastest AF lock ons with lens f/2.8 or lower. I never regretted owning fast glass including the 50L, and the best was the 70-200 f/2.8 IS which is sharpest wide open. A wide prime is another option as well. Go here for full reviews and blur charts: http://www.imaging...ses/canon/reviews/
| Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in. |
| blackhawk This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control Total Likes: 3996 likes
UER newbie
| | | | Re: Canon Wide Angle lenses < Reply # 7 on 1/4/2018 6:36 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by lonewolf34
That's kind of where I'm at as well. In the long run, I assumed it'd be best to have the 2.8 but then I wasn't sure if the f4 w/ IS would be just as sufficient (obviously missing some of the creative aspect you mentioned). I definitely look at the used route as well. I just keep going back and forth between the f4 with IS and the 2.8.
| Here's the one that you wanted for about $1200: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM http://www.imaging....8l-ii-usm/review/This bitch is sharp wide open at f/2.8, a rare and very desirable quality in a lense. If you can swing $2G, Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III is a killer pro lense. It's worth it. Remember with the faster lense the viewfinder image is substantially brighter and that in its self is a big deal for lining up shots accurately. Save and get the best you can get. You may wonder what you're getting for all that extra money besides another f/stop? Superior flare/ghosting control, less distortion and color shifting, creamy smooth bokeh; background blur to kill for, a more rugged/weather sealed lense, faster/more accurate AF lock ups. L glass is just plain fun to shot with and handle. It will grab keepers cheaper lens are incapable of grabbing. That said on a full frame the 24-70L is still the most versatile, high Q zoom to pack. Do you really need that extra 8mm? There are times you will doing interiors... maybe a 10mm or so prime be a better choice. The f/2.8 versions of the 16-35L, 24-70L and the 70-200L combination give exceptional flexibility and come very close or even exceed prime lense photo quality.
| Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in. |
| dtewsacrificial
Location: Bay Area, CA Gender: Male Total Likes: 390 likes
On my way out the door.
| | | | Re: Canon Wide Angle lenses < Reply # 10 on 1/5/2018 11:01 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | My significant other had the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. She now uses the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM on her 5DMkIV. I had the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM. Now I use the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM on my 5DS. For the purposes of landscape and architectural photography (read: still), the easiest recommendation to make from among these is the f/4L IS. It was a dramatic improvement over its immediate predecessor, the f/2.8L II. I had the f/4L IS first between us. She borrowed it and took 8 shots outside our front door... and the f/2.8L II was up for sale. The particular improvement of the f/4L is its ability to resolve details (particularly edges) into the far corners of the frame. This is obvious even wide-open. Our copy of the f/2.8 II did not match such corner sharpness even when stopped down to f/8 and above. I bought the f/2.8L III to evaluate against our (then 2 copies of the) f/4L IS. Befitting its cost, it's even better than the f/4L IS. It wasn't as obvious as the significant others' 8 shots for the f/4L IS... but it was noticeable to me on my 50mpx 5DS. That said, it's a harder sell because the the f/4L is probably 80-90% of the improvement over the f/2.8L II for only half the price of the f/2.8L III. The f/2.8L III's improvements lie in a reduction of astigmatism (the smeariness of textures) toward the corners. The f/2.8L III gets Internet flack for its supposed high level of vignetting when wide open... but this is (auto)adjusted in post with lens profiles, and nobody (certainly not me), has ever paid attention to the theoretical increase in noise levels in those pushed corners. If people say "nobody stares at the scene in the corners," even less stare at the supposed noise. *I* could justify the f/2.8L III for two reasons: 1) the 5DS's sensel pitch is (currently) the most-demanding one at 135-format, so subtle differences are exaggerated for my output when pixel-peeped; and 2) the f/2.8 aperture is useful for the other purpose of the lens: backpacking. It's a one-lens solution to backcountry landscape photography, and astrophotography (it's pretty dark and good for astro out there). The other advantage that might eventually shift my significant other toward the f/2.8L III is that it's noticeably easier to frame through the OVF through the brighter lens in no-lights ninja-sneak missions. So as with most things in life, the hierarchy is what you would expect: newer, more-expensive = better. PS - The f/2.8L II is far-from-ideal for astro due to its significant coma. The f/2.8L III does not exhibit noticeable coma. Keeping a f/4L IS for general use and some version of a Samyang WA/UWA for astro is another valid approach.
[last edit 1/5/2018 11:13 PM by dtewsacrificial - edited 2 times]
| |
| blackhawk This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control Total Likes: 3996 likes
UER newbie
| | | | Re: Canon Wide Angle lenses < Reply # 11 on 1/5/2018 11:31 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by dtewsacrificial My significant other had the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. She now uses the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM on her 5DMkIV. I had the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM. Now I use the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM on my 5DS. For the purposes of landscape and architectural photography (read: still), the easiest recommendation to make from among these is the f/4L IS. It was a dramatic improvement over its immediate predecessor, the f/2.8L II. I had the f/4L IS first between us. She borrowed it and took 8 shots outside our front door... and the f/2.8L II was up for sale. The particular improvement of the f/4L is its ability to resolve details (particularly edges) into the far corners of the frame. This is obvious even wide-open. Our copy of the f/2.8 II did not match such corner sharpness even when stopped down to f/8 and above. I bought the f/2.8L III to evaluate against our (then 2 copies of the) f/4L IS. Befitting its cost, it's even better than the f/4L IS. It wasn't as obvious as the significant others' 8 shots for the f/4L IS... but it was noticeable to me on my 50mpx 5DS. That said, it's a harder sell because the the f/4L is probably 80-90% of the improvement over the f/2.8L II for only half the price of the f/2.8L III. The f/2.8L III's improvements lie in a reduction of astigmatism (the smeariness of textures) toward the corners. The f/2.8L III gets Internet flack for its supposed high level of vignetting when wide open... but this is (auto)adjusted in post with lens profiles, and nobody (certainly not me), has ever paid attention to the theoretical increase in noise levels in those pushed corners. If people say "nobody stares at the scene in the corners," even less stare at the supposed noise. *I* could justify the f/2.8L III for two reasons: 1) the 5DS's sensel pitch is (currently) the most-demanding one at 135-format, so subtle differences are exaggerated for my output when pixel-peeped; and 2) the f/2.8 aperture is useful for the other purpose of the lens: backpacking. It's a one-lens solution to backcountry landscape photography, and astrophotography (it's pretty dark and good for astro out there). The other advantage that might eventually shift my significant other toward the f/2.8L III is that it's noticeably easier to frame through the OVF through the brighter lens in no-lights ninja-sneak missions. So as with most things in life, the hierarchy is what you would expect: newer, more-expensive = better.
| A couple of points... Edge blur isn't as critical as near center blue. Most of those f/2.8 lens are sharpest stopped down to f/5.6; at f/8.0 and above you generally increase center and overall image blur. Was the lense ever calibrated/checked by Canon? It's not unheard of for not just AF calibration to be off but other optical/electronic parameters. Whenever you have a suspected issue with new L glass it's better to send it in. The NJ center does great work and it's free. My biggest complaint with the original 16-35L was flare control; stopped down to f/5.6 it was sharp enough in the center region and produced good images. The 2nd f/2.8 generation should be a solid shooter. The trade off for a slower lense for better blur/resolution isn't worth it; simply stopped the f/2.8 version down. If you need it though in low light it's there and you always have a brighter image in the viewfinder and for AF. Always use the blur chart to learn your lense's strengths/weak spots and how stopping it down mutates the blur map. That site I posted has a very useful interactive blur chart that runs on Java. Doesn't work on my Android but does when view on MS Windows.
| Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in. |
| |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 296 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739446373 pages have been generated.
|
|