I looked at buying one yesterday but did not because:
1. It has an 82mm front element which means I would have to buy a 82mm thin mount polarizer (big expense on top of the big price tag for the lens).
2. The 16-35 II is simply not compatible with a Cokin P-holder and would vignette like hell. I have a big investment in P-series grad filters and would not want to have to fart around buying new bigger grads and holders just to accomodate this 'princess' of a lens (too much crap to carry anyway!).
3. The price! Ouch. I will continue to use my 24mm TSE as my workhorse wide angle, the 16-35 would be a secondary lens, a lot of dough for an 'occasional' use lens
4. I wanted to test the sharpness differences between the 17-40 and the 16-35, if there was a huge difference I would consider the 16-35. But, the filter issues have me really questioning whether a small increase in sharpness (I suspect it would be minor) is worth all the expense and hassle of this lens.
So...at this point I am in adoration of my 24mm TSE and think it offers more in the way of creativity and control than either zoom, but I do admit for something wider at times. The jury is still out but I picked up a 17-40 and will test it against my 24 TSE and my 24-70L lens (the latter two are exceptional performers). If it performs up to my standards it will reside in my bag as my back-up wide angle lens - I am sure it will be fine as I know most folks love the 17-40. Darwin
Thanks, Darwin. I really would like to make the TSE my next purchase. I'd like to see some tests on the 16-35 because if there does seem to be a significant difference, I think it would be worth the price at some point. I like the bigger grads for a variety of reasons anyway though, and was thinking about making a switch there. But like you, I have a ton of P-series grads right now.
Darwin, after reviewing this lens myself, I suspect you'll find it to be just as solid in image quality as your 24TSE, if not better. This new 16-35 is one heck of a great lens, particularly in the areas of edge sharpness. I think it's worth the $. 82mm filter size is a let down though, as is the extra weight.
Posted by Ned Fenimore on August 3, 2007 at 7:16 PM
excellent
Posted by David A Bliss on August 3, 2007 at 11:25 PM
I shoot a Sigma with an 82mm front element, and since my camera has an APS-C sensor, there is no vignetting with the Cokin filter system. If you are shooting with a full frame sensor, you would run into problems. I don't know how it would work on something like the Mark III which is a 1.3 instead of a 1.6.
Does anyone have an opinion on whether this lens is worth the upgrade from the 17-40mm for landscapes? Thanks, Tristan
Posted by Marc Adamus on October 8, 2007 at 11:00 AM
>>Does anyone have an opinion on whether this lens is worth the upgrade from the 17-40mm for landscapes? Thanks, Tristan
Yes.
>> I shoot a Sigma with an 82mm front element, and since my camera has an APS-C sensor, there is no vignetting with the Cokin filter system. If you are shooting with a full frame sensor, you would run into problems.
Simple. Use big filters and hand hold them. It's easier anyway. If it's a screw-in polarizer or ND, buy ultra-thin wide angle specific versions of those filters. I have no vignetting problems with the 16-35 II.
Discussion
8 repliesMarc
1. It has an 82mm front element which means I would have to buy a 82mm thin mount polarizer (big expense on top of the big price tag for the lens).
2. The 16-35 II is simply not compatible with a Cokin P-holder and would vignette like hell. I have a big investment in P-series grad filters and would not want to have to fart around buying new bigger grads and holders just to accomodate this 'princess' of a lens (too much crap to carry anyway!).
3. The price! Ouch. I will continue to use my 24mm TSE as my workhorse wide angle, the 16-35 would be a secondary lens, a lot of dough for an 'occasional' use lens
4. I wanted to test the sharpness differences between the 17-40 and the 16-35, if there was a huge difference I would consider the 16-35. But, the filter issues have me really questioning whether a small increase in sharpness (I suspect it would be minor) is worth all the expense and hassle of this lens.
So...at this point I am in adoration of my 24mm TSE and think it offers more in the way of creativity and control than either zoom, but I do admit for something wider at times. The jury is still out but I picked up a 17-40 and will test it against my 24 TSE and my 24-70L lens (the latter two are exceptional performers). If it performs up to my standards it will reside in my bag as my back-up wide angle lens - I am sure it will be fine as I know most folks love the 17-40. Darwin
Yes.
>> I shoot a Sigma with an 82mm front element, and since my camera has an APS-C sensor, there is no vignetting with the Cokin filter system. If you are shooting with a full frame sensor, you would run into problems.
Simple. Use big filters and hand hold them. It's easier anyway. If it's a screw-in polarizer or ND, buy ultra-thin wide angle specific versions of those filters. I have no vignetting problems with the 16-35 II.