Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Matt

Matt

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
22,999
Name
matt
Edit My Images
Yes
The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is set to become the ultra wide-angle zoom of choice for professionals. With vastly improved peripheral sharpness, it replaces the popular EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM as Canon's leading wide-angle zoom. A constant f/2.8 aperture ensures exceptional low light performance and depth-of-field control throughout the zoom range.

more details when i get it
 
EF_16-35mm_f2_8L_II_USM_product_03_Medium_.jpg
 
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm :naughty:
 
Oooooooohhh :love:
 
photostar_1 said:
Am I missing something here......

The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is set to become.....

......it replaces the popular EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Identical, or what????
Click to expand...

Now ask yourself..... who posted that?

:)
 
hoi! i cut and pasted from the press release! i suspect they meant 17-40
 
matty said:
hoi! i cut and pasted from the press release! i suspect they meant 17-40
Click to expand...
The lens announced today replaces the current 16-35mm F2.8 L which has been around for a couple of years. I'm guessing it will cost around £1000.
 
SDK^ said:
The lens announced today replaces the current 16-35mm F2.8 L which has been around for a couple of years. I'm guessing it will cost around £1000.
Click to expand...

and the mkI was indeed soft around the edge, hence the hyperbole around crisp / sharp to the edge on the blurb
 
As opposed to the previous 77mm??

:thinking: :shrug: :D
 
and i'm still dribbling :love:
 
why is the thread size sooo big? looks like lots of plastic around the actualy glass :( is it something to do with having to have a large lens hood for wide angle lenses?
 
And just exactly what would a hood compatible to lens look like?

:eek: :cuckoo: :thinking:
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
why is the thread size sooo big? looks like lots of plastic around the actualy glass :( is it something to do with having to have a large lens hood for wide angle lenses?
Click to expand...

I think it's more to do with avoiding vignetting with filter on when it's wide open
 
Hmmmm - I've got a Sigma 12-24mm and its rather good. I'm sure the Canon is just as good - but not wide enough. Which begs the question why don't Canon make a 10mm like Nikon or even a 12-24mm like my Sigma?

I'm not knocking Canon but ........
 
rhodopsin said:
Hmmmm - I've got a Sigma 12-24mm and its rather good. I'm sure the Canon is just as good - but not wide enough. Which begs the question why don't Canon make a 10mm like Nikon or even a 12-24mm like my Sigma?

I'm not knocking Canon but ........
Click to expand...

Because by comparison to the canon 16-35 or even the 17-40, the sigma 12-24 is like a toy from kids cracker in terms of image quality. If canon could make something wider (for larger than a 1.6 crop sensor) then I'm fairly sure they would.

I quite often have to shoot pretty wide and I use the sigma 12-24 so I'm fairly aware of it capabilities and it does get the job done, as detail is not always as critical when you have such a wide degree of coverage.

I have seriously considered changing all my canon kit for nikon just because their 12-24 is sooo much better than mine but you don't gain a whole lot as the sensor is smaller.

A 5d with the 16-35 is the better answer but that's a whole lot of ££'s while I'm still getting away with using the Sigma.
 
dazzajl said:
Because by comparison to the canon 16-35 or even the 17-40, the sigma 12-24 is like a toy from kids cracker in terms of image quality. If canon could make something wider (for larger than a 1.6 crop sensor) then I'm fairly sure they would.

I quite often have to shoot pretty wide and I use the sigma 12-24 so I'm fairly aware of it capabilities and it does get the job done, as detail is not always as critical when you have such a wide degree of coverage.

I have seriously considered changing all my canon kit for nikon just because their 12-24 is sooo much better than mine but you don't gain a whole lot as the sensor is smaller.

A 5d with the 16-35 is the better answer but that's a whole lot of ££'s while I'm still getting away with using the Sigma.
Click to expand...


You didn't actually answer why Canon don't make a lens such as the Sigma 12-24mm. I know Canon is far superior to Sigma in many ways but in this case Sigma are far superior as they actually make a 12-24mm lens. I had to purchase the Sigma because I too needed the wide angles. Canon have missed out on a sale. However if they do release a lens approaching 12mm I would be first inline to buy it.
 
I will be interested to see how much of an improvement this is over the original one although optically I have been happy with the one I have.
 
rhodopsin said:
You didn't actually answer why Canon don't make a lens such as the Sigma 12-24mm. I know Canon is far superior to Sigma in many ways but in this case Sigma are far superior as they actually make a 12-24mm lens. I had to purchase the Sigma because I too needed the wide angles. Canon have missed out on a sale. However if they do release a lens approaching 12mm I would be first inline to buy it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put my house on it, but i'd say it would be down to cost, market and attitude. I too have the Sigma and, although its a rugged bit of kit, its doesn't reproduce the same IQ as a Canon L.

As you know, Canon go down to 14mm (rectilinear) but this is an L lens with a top L price of £1k+. I couldn't justify this cost when Sigma produce something adequate for £400 +-
 
You didn't actually answer why Canon don't make a lens such as the Sigma 12-24mm
Click to expand...

I think the point I was rambling towards was that Canon probably don't like the engineering/design solutions that Sigma have needed to employ to make a zoom that reaches out to 12mm and covers FF.

Looking at the IQ difference between a Canon L (or nikon version) wide zoom you can see why they might not have been happy to put out a lens like the Sigmas that we use.
 
Sigma don't produce a wide lens with a contant F2.8 aperture and they also don't have a 24-70 range lens with HSM. I'd rather have those than a super wide 12-24 :)
 
Guys I think we all miss the point here..

Rhodopsin, if I remember your signature correctly then you own 1d's right?

This would explain why you don't consider EF-S LENSES. :shrug:

The sigma and nikon lenses you guys are comparing are "digital" lenses and do not have ef lens equivalents.

You will get wider than 16mm ef lenses but they are mainly primes e.g. 8mm but I'm sure they will be PRICEY!!

Hope this helps

:thumbs:
 
Had a look on b&h EF 15mm prime (NON-L)...JUST BELOW $600

EF 14mm L (PRIME) about $1650 or so...

Will let you know if I see wider Canon primes


Cheers:thumbs:
 
Anton Roland said:
Had a look on b&h EF 15mm prime (NON-L)...JUST BELOW $600

EF 14mm L (PRIME) about $1650 or so...

Will let you know if I see wider Canon primes


Cheers:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Widest Canon is 14mm (rect) - the 15mm is a fisheye.

Although 'digital' as you say, the Sigma is NOT DC and therefore gives a FF image as an EF mount lens - just for clarity :) Digital denotes the treatment of the lenses to reduce glare.
 
Cheers JR and thanks for the corrections there...

Gets a bit confusing at times, that is why I only worry to know about the Canon stuff and forget the rest

:thumbs: :D
 
Anton Roland said:
Cheers JR and thanks for the corrections there...

Gets a bit confusing at times, that is why I only worry to know about the Canon stuff and forget the rest

:thumbs: :D
Click to expand...

Tell me about it!!:bang:
 
Anton Roland said:
Guys I think we all miss the point here..

Rhodopsin, if I remember your signature correctly then you own 1d's right?

This would explain why you don't consider EF-S LENSES. :shrug:

The sigma and nikon lenses you guys are comparing are "digital" lenses and do not have ef lens equivalents.

You will get wider than 16mm ef lenses but they are mainly primes e.g. 8mm but I'm sure they will be PRICEY!!

Hope this helps

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

That's correct - 2 x EOS 1D mkII N and EOS 3 35mm - that is why I can't consider the "S"

As in an earlier by SDK - Sigma don't make an F2.8 12-24mm, but nor do Canon - My point is I wished Canon did make a 12-24mm or less even if it was F2 or F2.8 or even F4.5 I'd buy it.

The Sigma isn't all that bad as you can see below:

PCWDHS.jpg
 
:eek: :eek: :eek:

When last did you have your sensor cleaned
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I must have confused the 8mm sigma fish-eye with the Canons.

Seems the 14mm L is the widest you can go in Canon.

Don't know if the 8mm Sigma will work on the 1D cameras, don't think it will

:shrug:

Cheers
 
Don't know if the 8mm Sigma will work on the 1D cameras, don't think it will
Click to expand...

It works just fine but you don't get a full circle image. This lens is mostly used for 360 degree virtual tour type stuff and has very little use as a creative tool. I've used mine a little just playing about but it always feels just too gimicky.

Pretty good lens though but I think the price tag keeps most people away from something with such limited uses.

I'd be happy to part with mine for the right price though if anyone feels they need one. :lol:
 
Anton Roland said:
:eek: :eek: :eek:

When last did you have your sensor cleaned
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Mud glorious Mud :cuckoo:

I did actually get some mud on my Sigma 12-24mm lens once - an expensive repair. But I suppose you're going to say I should have used a filter - look it up and you'll understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top