Ziggy - you'll explain to me why the diameter changed?
I thought it was because people complained about vignetting with the old lens. The way to solve that is to make the front element larger or move it further in (make the overall lens shorter).
I thought it was because people complained about vignetting with the old lens. The way to solve that is to make the front element larger or move it further in (make the overall lens shorter).
Nah the vigging on the MkI was never a problem that I experienced. Wide open, the Mk2 vigs the same as the Mk1, AFAICT....
Ziggy - you'll explain to me why the diameter changed?
Andy,
There are several differences between the two lenses, Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM and the Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L II USM.
The biggest difference is that the newer lens has 16 elements in 12 groups, vs 14 elements in 10 groups for the older lens. While the two lenses share the same aperture and range specifications, they are obviously two different formulations, the newer being more complicated and sophisticated. Apparently this is the price to pay for better resolution across the image field.
Andy, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you didn't get one of the Conurus-converted Zeiss N 17-35!!
Thought about it, but since I like the focal range for handheld work, too, I wanted the convenience of AF as well, so I was rather excited that Canon decided to pour some dough into improving this lens
Thought about it, but since I like the focal range for handheld work, too, I wanted the convenience of AF as well, so I was rather excited that Canon decided to pour some dough into improving this lens
It looks like Conurus may have achieved the unthinkable; an adaptation of the Zeiss N 17-35mm, f2.8 to Canon EF mount "with" autofocus and auto aperture.
It looks like Conurus may have achieved the unthinkable; an adaptation of the Zeiss N 17-35mm, f2.8 to Canon EF mount "with" autofocus and auto aperture.
You guys are EVIL, you know that? Those Conurus mods are seriously tempting. Hmm...a nice KEH-sourced exotic CZ mega-sharp make-your-photo-buddies-green lens that just plugs onto your EOS body. :eat
You guys are EVIL, you know that? Those Conurus mods are seriously tempting. Hmm...a nice KEH-sourced exotic CZ mega-sharp make-your-photo-buddies-green lens that just plugs onto your EOS body. :eat
Let me additionally tempt you with the CZ Makro-Sonnar 100/2.8
100% crop
sharpening=0
Digital Rebel XTi
RAW converter: DPP
ISO 400, 1/200, f/5.6
Autofocus; ONE-SHOT mode locking on the eye
You can clearly see the photographer (me), the flash, the living room, furniture in her eyes. The frame at the bottom of her eye was the keyboard of the laptop computer she was perching on.
By the way, the bird's name was "Chan Chan". We used to call her "Chandler" until we realized she was a hen after she laid an egg. She is a St Thomas conure.
Bo-Ming
conurus - world's first independent lens mount conversion with autofocus and auto aperture
Let me additionally tempt you with the CZ Makro-Sonnar 100/2.8
100% crop
sharpening=0
Digital Rebel XTi
RAW converter: DPP
ISO 400, 1/200, f/5.6
Autofocus; ONE-SHOT mode locking on the eye
You can clearly see the photographer (me), the flash, the living room, furniture in her eyes. The frame at the bottom of her eye was the keyboard of the laptop computer she was perching on.
By the way, the bird's name was "Chan Chan". We used to call her "Chandler" until we realized she was a hen after she laid an egg. She is a St Thomas conure.
Augh! Quit it! Seriously, this looks like the kind of conversion to get fence-sitters like me to try some exotic glass. I need to do some research to decide if it's really worth it to try some of these out. New thread on these, maybe?
Improved sharpness in the corners, but not yet nirvana.
In real-life shooting, it's actually MUCH sharper in the corners. If you put an eye-chart in the corners while shooting El Cap, you might notice something, but if you take the eye charts out, you'd see sharp leaves
In real-life shooting, it's actually MUCH sharper in the corners. If you put an eye-chart in the corners while shooting El Cap, you might notice something, but if you take the eye charts out, you'd see sharp leaves
I'm really looking forward to your assesment and posts from this lens. Did it come in handy in Utah?
The only downside I see so far is that SingRay's variable netural density filter won't fit this lens larger filter size. In the scheme of things it's a small thing, really.
I'm really looking forward to your assesment and posts from this lens. Did it come in handy in Utah?
The only downside I see so far is that SingRay's variable netural density filter won't fit this lens larger filter size. In the scheme of things it's a small thing, really.
Too funny.... I'm in Utah shooting lansdscapes for a week, and I barely used it, favoring instead my 24mm TS-E and it's super usefulness for panos
Notice on this one, that the flaring is extremely well controlled. Also, look very very carefully at the high contrast edges - there is an amazingly low amount of Chromatic Abberation - in this case, just a bit of red fringing, very, very easily fixed in either ACR or Photoshop. This file is unsharpened. f/8, ISO200, 25mm.
Film vs digital lens design issues?
Jeff Hirsch who should know says the mark 1 had to be redesigned because it didn't work as well for digital as it did for film? He claims that the the mark 1 was a super sharp lens for film, but somehow didn't translate so well to digital.
Notice on this one, that the flaring is extremely well controlled. Also, look very very carefully at the high contrast edges - there is an amazingly low amount of Chromatic Abberation - in this case, just a bit of red fringing, very, very easily fixed in either ACR or Photoshop. This file is unsharpened. f/8, ISO200, 25mm. Original here.
The mark II looks great here, Andy ! I have the Mark I.
Maybe not as good, but the mark II is very very pricey here in the Netherlands.
The mark I has become my favourite lens for streetphotography.
I had started a thread here on DG http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62045
Comments
Ziggy - you'll explain to me why the diameter changed?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Reading is hard.
So they could sell more filters.
When did Canon buy B+W?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Shouldn't you be posting some test photos for us?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Your fans cannot take the suspense. Which lens will Andy keep or sell? Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of How the Shutter Clicks.
Andy, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you didn't get one of the Conurus-converted Zeiss N 17-35!!
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Andy,
There are several differences between the two lenses, Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM and the Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L II USM.
The biggest difference is that the newer lens has 16 elements in 12 groups, vs 14 elements in 10 groups for the older lens. While the two lenses share the same aperture and range specifications, they are obviously two different formulations, the newer being more complicated and sophisticated. Apparently this is the price to pay for better resolution across the image field.
Enjoy!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
It looks like Conurus may have achieved the unthinkable; an adaptation of the Zeiss N 17-35mm, f2.8 to Canon EF mount "with" autofocus and auto aperture.
http://en.conurus.com/faq.html
... and a review:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/cz17_35/v_nikon1735/index.html
Pretty cool stuff, but the specs of the new Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L II USM are awfully great! Could it be that the Zeiss optics have true competition?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
100% crop
sharpening=0
Digital Rebel XTi
RAW converter: DPP
ISO 400, 1/200, f/5.6
Autofocus; ONE-SHOT mode locking on the eye
You can clearly see the photographer (me), the flash, the living room, furniture in her eyes. The frame at the bottom of her eye was the keyboard of the laptop computer she was perching on.
By the way, the bird's name was "Chan Chan". We used to call her "Chandler" until we realized she was a hen after she laid an egg.
conurus - world's first independent lens mount conversion with autofocus and auto aperture
Augh! Quit it!
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Or anyone else who has one for that matter, but Andy seems to be especially fussy about corner sharpness in WA lenses.
I haven't shot much with it yet
Soon, soon, soon I promise!
Early indicators:
* vigs LESS than MK1 at f/2.8 and f/4
* SHARPER on the FF body in the corners, yes, for sure.
* LESS CA on high contrast areas than the MKI
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
dak.smugmug.com
The only downside I see so far is that SingRay's variable netural density filter won't fit this lens larger filter size. In the scheme of things it's a small thing, really.
I did shoot this with it: http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/2907824#156745435-L-LB and this http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/2907824#156530113-L-LB
And I'm sure I have more.. I'll look again
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I took this shot to torture this lens a bit.
Notice on this one, that the flaring is extremely well controlled. Also, look very very carefully at the high contrast edges - there is an amazingly low amount of Chromatic Abberation - in this case, just a bit of red fringing, very, very easily fixed in either ACR or Photoshop. This file is unsharpened. f/8, ISO200, 25mm.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Those look great to me!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Jeff Hirsch who should know says the mark 1 had to be redesigned because it didn't work as well for digital as it did for film? He claims that the the mark 1 was a super sharp lens for film, but somehow didn't translate so well to digital.
Does this make sense? If so, why?
The mark II looks great here, Andy ! I have the Mark I.
Maybe not as good, but the mark II is very very pricey here in the Netherlands.
The mark I has become my favourite lens for streetphotography.
I had started a thread here on DG
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62045
Have a look.
Bye,
Peter Dumont