11-10-2016, 09:01 AM
sample gallery: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L III
11-10-2016, 09:21 AM
That's pretty darn quick work, thanks! Are you going to extrapolate the 21MP(ish) performance for this lens like you did with the Sigma 20/1.4 A - for easier comparison to the version II (and the Tamron 15-30 tested recently in the Nikon mount)?
Forgive me: I know I am sounding like a stuck record - BOTH asking for the lower MP evaluation AND admitting the stuck record part.
11-10-2016, 01:55 PM
Yes, will do.
11-10-2016, 10:05 PM
I'm sorry to say but this lens has a massive vignetting issue.
11-11-2016, 06:53 AM
Or the usual wide angle full frame sensor issue?
11-11-2016, 08:19 AM
More than "usual" - it's Zeiss-like.
Canon EOS 5Ds R vs EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L III
Well, we know that the 5DSR sensor chews through lenses like a fat kid goes through a sack of jelly beans. Though I was expecting a non-extreme, $2000+ L lens to hold its own. Is it being demolished only at 16mm? (like the 11-24 was done in at 11mm but turned out pretty good beyond).
P. S. The TDP vignetting tests have already shown that this lens is massively afflicted... shockingly more so than the version II. It's not as bad at f/4 and beyond but still a lot worse than the old lens, that's for sure. I wonder why...
The weak spot is actually at 35mm.
Hm... for that amount of dough I kinda expected that lens to be stellar everywhere. Then again, on 5D Mark II(ish) it well may be, and Canon may have thought that whoever has the cash to splurge for a 5DSR and this lens must already have the 24-70/2.8 II as well... probably not many of them really go the old "cheapskate" route of skipping the standard zoom and going straight for the 70-200 as the next lens as I am doing ever since parting with my old 24-85. Therefore the 35mm end is big deal for me (and it's not noticeably worse than the rest of the range on the 16-35/4) but probably not to most anyone else.
11-11-2016, 12:39 PM
The MTFs look pretty good at 21mp ... ;-)
|Users browsing this thread:|