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

Started Jul 4, 2014 | Discussions thread
OP hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 19,000
Re: Corner tests for 16-35 f/4 vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (v.1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

kevindar wrote:

the original 16-35 arguably had the worst corners at 16mm, of the ultrawide L lenses canon makes. it also had the worst flare and microcontrast. it had excellent central sharpness, and was a very popular wedding/pj lens. even at f11, the new f4 lens will be a fair bit better in the corners at 16.

compared to 16-35II, it appears the new lens has great improvement in the corners bellow f5.6 to f8. It also has a more even performance throughout the image, as 16-35II has a bit more of peaks and valley's, but certainly not quite as much of a difference as you see here.

the 16-35 f4 IS, 24-70 F4 IS, and 70-200 f4IS make an amazing landscape setup.

Agree completely! Canon has really covered the key focal lengths with these three superb zooms. I wish I had had a 16-35 f/2.8 version II to compare it to, but as it is, I feel absolutely no regret to relegating my old version 1 to backup status.

 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow