How good is the 16-35 (version I) wide open?

Started Jan 12, 2013 | Discussions
zalle
Contributing MemberPosts: 618
Like?
How good is the 16-35 (version I) wide open?
Jan 12, 2013

Hi,

I have a 10-22 which I use on my crop camera(s) wide open (F3.5) with lots of confidence. I'm considering a friend's 16-35 MKI so I could use it on the 5DMKII.

How good is it wide open? Can I just use it? Or do I have to be cautious about it not being too sharp at F2.8?

Thanks

Canon EOS 5D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
DidierV
Contributing MemberPosts: 737
Like?
I was in your exact situation
In reply to zalle, Jan 12, 2013

zalle wrote:

Hi,

I have a 10-22 which I use on my crop camera(s) wide open (F3.5) with lots of confidence. I'm considering a friend's 16-35 MKI so I could use it on the 5DMKII.

How good is it wide open? Can I just use it? Or do I have to be cautious about it not being too sharp at F2.8?

Thanks

I went from a 10-22 on a 50D to a 16-35 MKI on a 5D

I might disappoint you, but wide open at 2.8 this lens is soft in the corners. Actually quite soft but sharp in the center, this is not a big deal for me but if you want absolute corner to corner sharpness at 2.8 it will not deliver. This being said I am not sure the MKII version will be completely sharp either at 2.8. It will be better but fast wide angle zooms are not known for their sharpness wide open. If it is what you are after look at the 24 1.4 L it will be sharp at 2.8.

But, as soon as you you stop it down the MKI it is very sharp. The other advantage of the 2.8, besides wider aperture is the color and contrast which on a FF are wonderful.

All in all the MKI is very good on a FF camera, I like mine very much.

-- hide signature --

Didier
www.pbase.com/didierv

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kevindar
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,594Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is the 16-35 (version I) wide open?
In reply to zalle, Jan 12, 2013

10 3.5 translates to 16 5.6 on the 16-35 and 5d2.  the lens would be very sharp about 80 percent of frame, soft in the corners (5%) and ok the remaining 15.  the 16-35 never gets supersharp in the corners on the wide end.  If wide open or even stopped down performace is very important to you on the wide end, look at the tokina 16-28.

16-35 is very sharenter at 2.8 throughout its zoom range.  wide open, 2/3 of the way from center, its simply soft on the wide end, becoming sharper as you stop down, but on the wide end, the extreme corners are never tack sharp.  17-40 does slight better here at f4.

 kevindar's gear list:kevindar's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Schwany
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,252Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is the 16-35 (version I) wide open?
In reply to zalle, Jan 12, 2013

zalle wrote:

Hi,

I have a 10-22 which I use on my crop camera(s) wide open (F3.5) with lots of confidence. I'm considering a friend's 16-35 MKI so I could use it on the 5DMKII.

How good is it wide open? Can I just use it? Or do I have to be cautious about it not being too sharp at F2.8?

Thanks

Well, I suppose it would depend on ones definition of what they consider good. I think it is plenty sharp wide open, and I use it with confidence. I have one on a 5DMkII currently. I use it wide open if the light is poor or want to isolate a close object.

It is not a perfect lens. It can produce CA in high contrast situations (examples, silhouetted or shaded dark tree leafs and branches against a bright sky background, or bright lights on a dark background) and some vignetting. The corners are too soft for some. It doesn't bother me, and I find its performance acceptable for an older zoom.

If the price is right, it is worth owning. I have never owned a 10-22 so have no idea how it compares. I paid $750 for the one I got. No regrets.

 Schwany's gear list:Schwany's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zalle
Contributing MemberPosts: 618
Like?
Don't really care about corners
In reply to Schwany, Jan 12, 2013

I'm not into landscapes, don't really care about the corners (too much).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zalle
Contributing MemberPosts: 618
Like?
Re: How good is the 16-35 (version I) wide open?
In reply to kevindar, Jan 12, 2013

kevindar wrote:

10 3.5 translates to 16 5.6 on the 16-35 and 5d2.

You mean DOF?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kevindar
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,594Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is the 16-35 (version I) wide open?
In reply to zalle, Jan 12, 2013

zalle wrote:

kevindar wrote:

10 3.5 translates to 16 5.6 on the 16-35 and 5d2.

You mean DOF?

I mean equivalance. yes, dof, noise for the same shutter speed, fov shooting from the same spot, hence having the same perspective.

 kevindar's gear list:kevindar's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tonyjr
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,143Gear list
Like?
Re: Don't really care about corners
In reply to zalle, Jan 12, 2013

It depends on what you are shooting .

An example would be the bride and groom at the alter - OK - BUT put the bride and groom , bride's maids and their dates in the same shot and the lens sucks below F 4 and is OK at 5.6 .

 tonyjr's gear list:tonyjr's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads