• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

next PZ lens test report: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L III


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,185 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 13 November 2016 - 01:53 AM

Nice ... except for the extreme vignetting at 16mm f/2.8

http://www.photozone...canon1635f28mk3

 


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 03:30 AM

Looks very nice.........and expensive!


  • Klaus likes this

#3 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 13 November 2016 - 10:47 AM

The vignetting is - again - nuts, it's like Leica territory or something. Overall this lens doesn't seem very practical between all the alternatives. The big question mark is whether the f/4 IS lens does fall apart at 50 MP - then, of course, the hapless 5DSR users have no other (brand name) high quality option.

 

Thankfully this new lens did not trigger the G.A.S. in my case... I know where my loyalties lie.  :rolleyes:

8_1EQxPqkok.jpg



#4 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,185 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 13 November 2016 - 10:58 AM

The 16-35mm IS has nearly identical MTFs at 21mp so ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#5 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 13 November 2016 - 11:11 AM

The 16-35mm IS has nearly identical MTFs at 21mp so ...

Oh, thanks for pointing it out. There's a decent chance that we can extrapolate, then.

It's not like I'm ever going to get a 5DSR anyway - it's about the last camera I'm ever going to get. :)



#6 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 13 November 2016 - 02:23 PM

I don't know why I am not at all tempted by a full frame ultrawide.
Now I understand why Tokina had to make their 16-28 big and heavy with a protruding front element.
APS-C offers you much more often needed DOF a more dramatic perspective,way cheaper prices and much lighter alternative.
3+EV vignetting is the least to say unacceptable.
  • Rover likes this

#7 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 13 November 2016 - 03:38 PM

That's what I've been saying for quite some time now: the dedicated APS-C are abundant, diverse, have good IQ (as a rule) and usually provide better across the frame sharpness. The Sigma 8-16 is also about the widest one can get (without selling a kidney AND mortgaging your house). The Canon 10-18 looks like a tiny/affordable marvel.



#8 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 13 November 2016 - 08:26 PM

I don't know why I am not at all tempted by a full frame ultrawide.
Now I understand why Tokina had to make their 16-28 big and heavy with a protruding front element.
APS-C offers you much more often needed DOF a more dramatic perspective,way cheaper prices and much lighter alternative.
3+EV vignetting is the least to say unacceptable.

Losing sight of equivalence again.

 

To get an equivalent lens on APS-C, you are talking about 10-22mm f1.75 lens. Wanna bet on how vignetting for the 10mm f1.8 end would be on on APS-C?

 

You do not get more DOF on APS-C either, when you set equivalent settings. So, APS-C does not have a DOF advantage, nor will it vignet lens at equivalent settings.

Nor will it give more dramatic perspectives.

 

Just set your EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM III to 16 mm and f13 and you get the same of less vignetting as the APS-C lens at 10mm f8, and the same DOF.

You can not set the APS-C lens to 10mm and f1.8 though, and that is where the FF lens has the advantage (when needed). 


  • Klaus likes this

#9 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 13 November 2016 - 08:50 PM

Losing sight of equivalence again.

To get an equivalent lens on APS-C, you are talking about 10-22mm f1.75 lens. Wanna bet on how vignetting for the 10mm f1.8 end would be on on APS-C?

You do not get more DOF on APS-C either, when you set equivalent settings. So, APS-C does not have a DOF advantage, nor will it vignet lens at equivalent settings.
Nor will it give more dramatic perspectives.

Just set your EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM III to 16 mm and f13 and you get the same of less vignetting as the APS-C lens at 10mm f8, and the same DOF.
You can not set the APS-C lens to 10mm and f1.8 though, and that is where the FF lens has the advantage (when needed).

Thanks for showing this equivalence I didn't think of.
However a practical approach: I have Tokina 16-28 and canon 10-18.
It is obvious which combo is lighter and 10mm f8 has more DOF than 16mm f8 since lighting is the same and angle is the same, so I prefer the crop version.
Of course if I needed shallow DOF and low light performance I would use the Tokina 16-28.
Perspective at 10mm should be different from perspective at 16mm however I didn't notice this in real life practice.
Now being more and more practical, ultrawides isn't my style and I rarely use any of them but I am too anxious to carry a bag without an ultrawide inside "in case I need it"

#10 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 13 November 2016 - 09:06 PM

Thanks for showing this equivalence I didn't think of.
However a practical approach: I have Tokina 16-28 and canon 10-18.
It is obvious which combo is lighter and 10mm f8 has more DOF than 16mm f8 since lighting is the same and angle is the same, so I prefer the crop version.
Of course if I needed shallow DOF and low light performance I would use the Tokina 16-28.
Perspective at 10mm should be different from perspective at 16mm however I didn't notice this in real life practice.
Now being more and more practical, ultrawides isn't my style and I rarely use any of them but I am too anxious to carry a bag without an ultrawide inside "in case I need it"

Lighting will the the same for 16mm f13 (FF) and 10mm f8 (APS-C) when you set APS-C to for instance ISO 200 and FF to ISO 500 or so. 

 

Why would there be a different perspective for 16mm on FF and 10mm on APS-C? There actually is no perspective difference. Same subject distance and same FOV.

 

APS-C has the price and weight advantage. FF the shallow DOF possibility advantage.



#11 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 13 November 2016 - 09:23 PM

Lighting will the the same for 16mm f13 (FF) and 10mm f8 (APS-C) when you set APS-C to for instance ISO 200 and FF to ISO 500 or so.

Why would there be a different perspective for 16mm on FF and 10mm on APS-C? There actually is no perspective difference. Same subject distance and same FOV.

APS-C has the price and weight advantage. FF the shallow DOF possibility advantage.

Why should I set different ISO settings? I am shooting in bright daylight so on both I will use lowest ISO available (100mm in my case)
At ISO 100 10mm f8 on 750D I have more DOF than ISO 100 16mm f8 on 5D will be using same shutter speed will be having same angle or coverage. You might argue about quality pixel density and noise, you are correct, however for me it's the point I noted that matters.
And as said, I am not a wide angles guy, however I discovered this too late after investing in lenses, go figure my prefered landscape lens is 50mm f1.4.

#12 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 13 November 2016 - 10:16 PM

Why should I set different ISO settings? I am shooting in bright daylight so on both I will use lowest ISO available (100mm in my case)
At ISO 100 10mm f8 on 750D I have more DOF than ISO 100 16mm f8 on 5D will be using same shutter speed will be having same angle or coverage. You might argue about quality pixel density and noise, you are correct, however for me it's the point I noted that matters.
And as said, I am not a wide angles guy, however I discovered this too late after investing in lenses, go figure my prefered landscape lens is 50mm f1.4.

Because you said that exposure time is important. What do you do when exposure time is too long? You raise the ISO.

 

So you choose a FOV. (equivalent focal lengths)

You choose a DOF. (equivalent f-value)

You determine a suitable exposure time. If the exposure time is too long, you set a higher ISO. That is how photography works.  B)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de