Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
So about as good as the f/4 L IS according to Canon.
Posts: 2,724
Threads: 595
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
15
I am thinking about those who upgraded to 16-35 II and now they find themselves with an outdated lens.
Couldn't canon engineers get this formula from the beginning?
I know plenty of photographers who did the update and who will be updating now
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
The 16-35 f2.8 L USM II is from 2007, that is almost a decade ago. Lens design is constantly evolving.
So the answer to your question? "No".
Posts: 3,125
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
08-26-2016, 10:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2016, 10:17 AM by Rover.)
The design does not look radically different though. It's an interesting fact that the 16-35/2.8 is the first L lens to go into the third iteration - kind of an admission by Canon that they didn't quite get the first redesign right somehow.
BTW, I'm a happy camper with the f/4 IS. I know many people feel the same. A 16-35/2.8 was the default choice, but... Not anymore. Instead, it has become a niche lens (and the situation isn't helped by the very high price of this new unit).
Posts: 646
Threads: 18
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
1
I wish Nikon redesign their 16-35 f4.