Corner tests for 16-35 f/4 vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (v.1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
Fog Maker
Senior MemberPosts: 1,387
Re: Corner tests for 16-35 f/4 vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (v.1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II
In reply to Rick Knepper, 10 months ago

hotdog321 wrote:

Sharpness, resolution, color fringing, resistance to flare make the old 16-35 look sick and are frankly better than my fabulously expensive 24-70 f/2.8L II, which is kinda depressing.

Are you speaking in general or about the posted comparisons?

In the 24mm series, you are comparing one lens' middle FL with the other's extreme wide end. I see a slight advantage to the 16-35/4 IS (if I have the order correct) but at the same time recognize the feat performed by the 24-70 II. In the 35mm series, I see the 24-70 II as the winner.

I have seen no 16-35/4 IS images posted here or anywhere else that should cause anyone to become depressed.

Being expensive is a matter of opportunity. I believe we've seen the 24-70 II sell for a s little as $1699. All someone has to do is wait for the next real sale, not the rebate sale.

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc.

Stop living in denial. You've been arguing the same thing, even before test results were in. And that's just childish.

(and this comes from someone who has no intention whatsoever to buy this new lens)

Splendid work, Canon!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow