Canon 16-35mm upgrade?

[treas]

I was looking at purchasing this lens but I found that it has recently been upgraded. The upgrade is $1400. plus and the discountinued is $1039.

Does anyone have any input on the differences, are they worth the extra
dough?

[toosnvetts]

Everything is going up!

You might want to read this older review and see if you absolutely need the 16-35 2.8. Good luck with whatever choice you make. I like my new 17-40 4l but I am a newbie and love all this stuff!

Charlie

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... 7-40.shtml

[gilp]

I don't have the "upgrade" model but I do have the original 16-35L 2.8 and while it's good...it's the worst of all my L lenses. it's not that sharp and that's on the whole range. my assistant as a 17-35 from tamron and while the focus is much slower it easily compares to my 16-35....at 1/3 the price.

[marxz]

Wide angle zooms seem to be quite a difficult product to get "just right" there seems to be quite a few great standard and telephoto lenses but wide angles seem to be a matter of "pick your compromise" between the factors of speed , low distortion, low CA, edge to edge sharpness and, of course price.


I've tried to find some reviews of 16-35 MKI V's 16-35 MKII... get far too many hits on the 16-35 V's 17-35 or other comparisons to wade through and find the right ones.

I recall that the general gist of the MK I V's Mk II 16-35 f/2.8 L reviews were that the MKII was a little sharper, and less prone to flareing and that the price difference between NOS MKI's and the new MKII was worth it for the improvement if using a full frame camera (1Ds, 5D) but a little less definite value on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop frame camera.

My Sigma 10-20 actually has slightly less (but noticeably so) CA and ever so slightly sharper at the center than the Canon 17-35 L I own.

The 16-35 L MkI that I tried had about the same level of CA as the Sigma and about the same center sharpness, not enough for me to slap the big money down on the 16-35L over either my Sigma 10-20 or Canon 17-35L

Of course the Sigma was basically less than 1/3rd the price of a new 16-35 (and about the same price as the 17-35 used)

the advantage that the 17-35 (and the 16-35) is:

f/2.8 - faster focusing in low light (not such a big issue with wide angles) and able to take shots in lower light being 2 stops faster than the sigma.

Sharper image from edge to edge and the 16-35 MK II being sharpest of them.

Full frame compatibility - important to me as I'm looking to move to a 5D shortly. If I knew I was staying at 1.6 I would have got the excellent 17-55 f/2.8 EFs (and actually I did buy it when it first came out and had to return it ASAP as the EOS 60D which I use as my spare body, despite being a 1.6 crop, won't take EFs mount lenses)

Far less distortion and vingeting though fare's fare the Sigma is a 10-20 ultra wide angle so to compare these against a 17/16-35 is a bit unfair.

build quality, actually the Sigma seems to be very well built but the L's are just that little more so.

[ideatasarim]

Wide angle zooms seem to be quite a difficult product to get "just right" there seems to be quite a few great standard and telephoto lenses but wide angles seem to be a matter of "pick your compromise" between the factors of speed , low distortion, low CA, edge to edge sharpness and, of course price.


I've tried to find some reviews of 16-35 MKI V's 16-35 MKII... get far too many hits on the 16-35 V's 17-35 or other comparisons to wade through and find the right ones.

I recall that the general gist of the MK I V's Mk II 16-35 f/2.8 L reviews were that the MKII was a little sharper, and less prone to flareing and that the price difference between NOS MKI's and the new MKII was worth it for the improvement if using a full frame camera (1Ds, 5D) but a little less definite value on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop frame camera.

My Sigma 10-20 actually has slightly less (but noticeably so) CA and ever so slightly sharper at the center than the Canon 17-35 L I own.

The 16-35 L MkI that I tried had about the same level of CA as the Sigma and about the same center sharpness, not enough for me to slap the big money down on the 16-35L over either my Sigma 10-20 or Canon 17-35L

Of course the Sigma was basically less than 1/3rd the price of a new 16-35 (and about the same price as the 17-35 used)

the advantage that the 17-35 (and the 16-35) is:

f/2.8 - faster focusing in low light (not such a big issue with wide angles) and able to take shots in lower light being 2 stops faster than the sigma.

Sharper image from edge to edge and the 16-35 MK II being sharpest of them.

Full frame compatibility - important to me as I'm looking to move to a 5D shortly. If I knew I was staying at 1.6 I would have got the excellent 17-55 f/2.8 EFs (and actually I did buy it when it first came out and had to return it ASAP as the EOS 60D which I use as my spare body, despite being a 1.6 crop, won't take EFs mount lenses)

Far less distortion and vingeting though fare's fare the Sigma is a 10-20 ultra wide angle so to compare these against a 17/16-35 is a bit unfair.

build quality, actually the Sigma seems to be very well built but the L's are just that little more so.

It* became useful thanks