16-35 f2.8 III

[antoeknee]

Review on DPReview

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/updating-a-classic-canon-16-35mm-f2-8-iii-lens-review

[TonyT]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

It amazes me people seem to rush out to buy the latest version of xyz when in all honesty few people will see the benefits as ordinary users.

[Enigma]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

It amazes me people seem to rush out to buy the latest version of xyz when in all honesty few people will see the benefits as ordinary users.

The combination of successful marketing and human psychology ... convince people they need something ... often it's only necessary to plant the initial seed and people will then convince themselves of the "need."

[antoeknee]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

The combination of successful marketing and human psychology ... convince people they need something ... often it's only necessary to plant the initial seed and people will then convince themselves of the "need."

Each launch of a new iPhone is an example of this.

However would seem this latest version of this lens is definitely an improvement which doesn't seem to be the case with updated 24-105.

[Richard W]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

I note the review says about the MK II "It's fairly well known that the previous iteration of this lens had its fair share of issues. Corner sharpness, the handling of CA, coma and overall central sharpness throughout the focal range proved to be major drawbacks for the lens though the issues never got in the way of the lens' popularity." I added the bold here, I'm continually surprised by the fact that so many people with enough money automatically assume that an expensive "L" lens must be wonderful, even though tests may show issues.

At over £2k, I would expect a lens to be brilliant, out of my range or needs of course. Photozone.de suggest that the IQ of the F4 is as good and so unless you really, really need F2.8, then you'd be better off with the F4 at less than half the price. People often believe that when you buy a more expensive lens the extra money will automatically give you better IQ, but often it doesn't, it's that one stop extra that you are paying for.

When the new 24 - 105 was announced, I was surprised how many people were desperate to get hold of it immediately and were quite frustrated that there was no stock. However, that meant that reviews came out before stock was available and suddenly the enthusiasm waned. Maybe quite a few people saved money in the end.

There's a general rule in regard to technology, don't be a first adopter, let others find out the problems, then decide if you still want it.

[@imagesBV]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

I agree with all of the above. I've been on the iPhone bandwagon but this year decided enough is enough and cancelled the gravy train new model every 2 years and expensive monthly payments and bought an iPhone SE outright from John Lewis....slashing my overall costs by a third.

As for lenses, all Canon lenses are good...the only argument for the new series for me would be if they are designed to work better with the newer higher megapixel camera....50MB+

[Enigma]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

However would seem this latest version of this lens is definitely an improvement which doesn't seem to be the case with updated 24-105.

I am still working to convince myself that my recent decision to buy a 24-105 MkII was a good one! Unfortunately I know just enough about psychology to be aware of the thought processes I am following ...

[@imagesBV]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

The only issue I've had with my first 24-105 was flare...especially with low sun, the newer one I have now seems better. Maybe the MKII is better altogether in that respect?

[Enigma]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

The only issue I've had with my first 24-105 was flare...especially with low sun, the newer one I have now seems better. Maybe the MKII is better altogether in that respect?

I think the "problem" with the MkII at the moment is that the various pre-shipment announcements led people to believe the new lens would be a significant improvement over the original. The early post-shipment reviews do not support those expectations with the MkII apparently only delivering modest improvements with some aspects perhaps even not matching the original.

I bought the 24-105 MkII because I wanted a single walk-about lens but I did think long and hard about the f/2.8 and f/4 versions of the 24-70 before finally going for what I felt would offer the best IS performance because I can no longer hand hold at slower shutter speeds.

[Richard W]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

because I can no longer hand hold at slower shutter speeds.

Interestingly, the 16 - 35 F2.8 doesn't have IS while the F4 does, could be another consideration for some.

[TonyT]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

I agree with all of the above. I've been on the iPhone bandwagon but this year decided enough is enough and cancelled the gravy train new model every 2 years and expensive monthly payments and bought an iPhone SE outright from John Lewis....slashing my overall costs by a third.

As for lenses, all Canon lenses are good...the only argument for the new series for me would be if they are designed to work better with the newer higher megapixel camera....50MB+

Jumped off that bandwagon years ago and use sim only, had a Sony Xperia z1 for years that did everything I needed, when it finally decided to start to fail, I found a new old stock same model for peanuts as no longer the in vogue version that I still use today, they are on model z6ish now. My unlimited everything package costs a 1/4 of what it did when I was stuck on that merry go round

[@imagesBV]

Re: 16-35 f2.8 III

I too looked at the 24-70 options....but f2.8 is only a stop faster than f4 so IS won it for me....but accepting the dof limitations of course. The 24-70 makes sense if you then have the 70-200 as a set up. I have 24-105 and 100-400 and use primes for narrow dof duties.