Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L vs. Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

02/25/2007 05:57:27 PM · #1

Canon has just updated their 16-35 f/2.8L lens with a second generation. They claim that this new lens is specifically designed for improved peripheral image quality.

You can see the specs for each lens here: Generation I vs. Generation II

Now, aside from the differences that they advertise, they have also changed the filter size from 77mm to 82mm. Now, the 77mm seems to be present on at least half of the L-series glass. The other lens that I am going to buy is the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and it has a filter size of 77mm also.

The question I ask then, is this: If you were buying these lenses right now, would you go with the generation I or II? With the knowledge that if you buy the new one you would also have to buy multiple filters deter you from buying the updated lens and sway your decision toward the generation 1 lens, or not?

goc

Apple iPhone 4

02/25/2007 05:59:42 PM · #2

i don't know, but ... if i had money for 16-35 f/2.8L II i wouldn't have problems buying few more 82mm filters :-)

MattO

Nikon D4

02/25/2007 06:02:41 PM · #3

From what I've read, the most improvement they made on the second generation lens is sharpness on the corners. So people who are using a crop camera really arent going to see the best advantage of it. Personally when its time for me to go from the 17-40 to the 16-35 I'll pick up a second hand generation 1 and be glad to save the $$$. Currently the first generation has dropped about $200 on the used market with folks dumping them for the new model.

MattO

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

02/25/2007 09:26:45 PM · #4

I'm going to be purchasing a 5d, so the improved sharpness on the edges could be nice, but what comments from current owners of the current generation lens? I would assume the quality is still rather high. Is that true?

MattO

Nikon D4

02/25/2007 09:56:07 PM · #5

Originally posted by traquino98:

I've never shot with it on any digital FF camera so I cant help you. But the 16-35 I had rented for a couple of weeks works awesome on film and on my 1DMKII. I wouldnt toss one to the curb if it was in my bag.

MattO

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

02/25/2007 11:44:49 PM · #6

Any other responses?

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

02/26/2007 01:26:11 AM · #7

If the version 2 actually makes improvements on the optical design, that would be your best bet if you want corner sharpness and reduced CA, especially if you're going to be printing big.

The current 16-35 is supposed to be worse than the 17-40, which is pretty soft in the corners anyway.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/26/2007 02:11:54 AM · #8

If you're not a nitpicking perfectionist then you would probably be very happy with either lens.

I debated buying the 16-35 back when I got my 17-40. I decided the little bit of extra speed wasn't worth the rather large difference in price. So far, I haven't needed the 2.8 and I'm very satisfied with my decision.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/26/2007 06:02:49 AM · #9

The 16-35 MkI is a great lens - there is some softness at 16mm. However, when I say softness, only in comparison to other elite lenses. It is generally very sharp and a league ahead of the 17-85 that I previously used.

The MkII sounds interesting - but filters are expensive (especially if you have spent all your money on the lenses!), and a consistent 77mm does save a few hundred if you are going to have a few expensive filters.

For example, a good quality selection of IR, CIR-PL, Graduated, and ND filters could cost as much as the 16-35mm itself. The Mk II therefore effectively doubles in price, or forces you to the cokin type system, or a (hard to find & $$$+) 82mm filter collection and adjustment rings.