very first impressions

Good review, and as you say, "very first impressions."  I'll bet you grow to love the lens in time.

Lensrentals did a tear down of the 16-35 IS and had some positive comments on it's construction. Also their optical/image testing was favorable. Seeing that, I ordered the lens and it will be here on Monday.

Reading your review, I will not be too quick to sell my 17-40mm. I have enjoyed it but to get the best out of it, I have had to stop it down to around f16 to get the corners sharp. My hope is that the 16-35 will be a superb performer at f5.6-8.

thanks for posting the review.

Dave

IS is useful even if DSLRs had no video on them. Example...

Taken at 05:55 hours, about 20 minutes after sunrise but light is still blocked by the canopy overhead. Resulting image, ISO1000. No IS would have produced an image at ISO5000.

1elementin7groups wrote:

Good review, and as you say, "very first impressions." I'll bet you grow to love the lens in time.

Lensrentals did a tear down of the 16-35 IS and had some positive comments on it's construction. Also their optical/image testing was favorable. Seeing that, I ordered the lens and it will be here on Monday.

Reading your review, I will not be too quick to sell my 17-40mm. I have enjoyed it but to get the best out of it, I have had to stop it down to around f16 to get the corners sharp. My hope is that the 16-35 will be a superb performer at f5.6-8.

thanks for posting the review.

Dave

Definitely read the lens rental article, the new lens pretty soundly whips the venerable 17-40 in the corners. Stopping down to f16- that is bad corners! My 16-35 F2.8II was nowhere near that bad!

BTW for what it's worth the build quality appears equal to other lenses, like the 24-105. It's nice to know that they've gone the extra mile on the internals.

PS the threads on mine work nice and smooth, to OP, are you sure it isn't the filter?

All in all, a really nicely constructed and performing lens in my experience.

Ad Hominem remarks and in German too! I'm impressed!

well I have fiddled with it and all seesm to be in good working order and the filter is a brand new B+W.
Feel like there isn't quite as much 'meat' to the thread, I havent measured it might be that the 17-40 just had more of it - not sure
Its a pet beef of mine though that filters are hard to change in the cold ( which it normally is here)  and trying to get those B+W filter boxes open in the cold....oh well

you mirror my thinking precisely

paul simon king wrote:

well I have fiddled with it and all seesm to be in good working order and the filter is a brand new B+W.
Feel like there isn't quite as much 'meat' to the thread, I havent measured it might be that the 17-40 just had more of it - not sure
Its a pet beef of mine though that filters are hard to change in the cold ( which it normally is here) and trying to get those B+W filter boxes open in the cold....oh well

Not to mention that they get stuck!

at the moment my efforts are mainly concentrating on trying to find the best Hyperfocal distances that I can work with.. it's not the same set up as the 17-40 thats for sure but then thats to be expected perhaps with the asphericals etc being a different consruction etc, not so much marhg==gin for error it seesms to me, a more demanding lens, which is no bad thing.
Im getting used to the build but still don't feel it's as robust as the 17-40, feel Ive got to treat it with kid gloves but I gueess some of that is 'new lens syndrone'

ah yes.. thatlittle problem , however for me that has always been less of a problem than changing them.
I try to avoid changing filters whenever possible but it happens anyway,, and really even if the camera's ona tripod it'sapain. trying to open the box without it flicking out is a cause for concern but then you've got to get the little blighter on before all the crap blows on the lens proper, and will that thread engage first time....? Never!

I often feel like John Cleese when doing it: "Right! That's it! - I've warned you once!"
lol

paul simon king wrote:

well I have fiddled with it and all seesm to be in good working order and the filter is a brand new B+W.
Feel like there isn't quite as much 'meat' to the thread, I havent measured it might be that the 17-40 just had more of it - not sure
Its a pet beef of mine though that filters are hard to change in the cold ( which it normally is here) and trying to get those B+W filter boxes open in the cold....oh well

I gather you may still be writing about the protective filter?

Have you (or anyone else) tried a polarizer on the lens?  I seldom used mine (B+W slim) on the 17-40mm as I got blotchy areas of coverage. But I was wondering how the coverage is on the 16-35 IS? Or when mine arrives tomorrow, I'll try it out. ;>)

Dave

yes, I am using the same B+W Polariser that I used on the 17-40 and there doesnt seem to be any vignetting -I did think I might need to get the slim version but it doesn't look like its needed
(unless you intend to stack filters which I never do so can't advise on that)
never had a blotchy area though - I'd send the filter straight back if that happened!

Yesterday.

Mainly so I can do with my 5D3 what I've been doing with my 60D+10-22.

So far I'm pretty happy. The build seems fine, and it is indeed sharp. I'm happy with the rendering of the sky with a sun star. I think my first attempt is better than I've ever got with the 10-22.

I've not had the 17-40 but based on reviews was never really tempted by it.

My main concern before buying was the fact that I already have the 24-70 f4L IS, so most of the zoom range is basically a duplicate.  However, if I carry both cameras and have the 16-35 on the 5D3 and the 24-70 on the 60D, they'll complement each other pretty well.   In any case, noting that the vast majority of my travel photos were shot with the 10-22, and a good number of them wider than 15mm, it was clear that I needed this lens on the 5D3.

I'll try to post a proper review at some point after I've been using it a while.

I was going to note that I was quite surprised by how much bokeh I could get at 16mm at f/4.  Definitely more than I've ever had from the 10-22.  Seems like reasonably nice bokeh too.