Canon NEW EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Quick Test

[Andrew M.]

Canon NEW EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Quick Test

I just got the new Canon 16-35mm (just released) that is a new technology to its maximum as some sources say.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=14907

Well, I am not disappointed. At its widest 16mm shot, attached, it do perform very well. Canon is planning to release new Ds Mark III 22MP camera at the end of this year so they have to deliver some new lenses and I think this one is the first that can work with the 22MP camera. Need to do more tests but so far on 8MP camera D20 that I did use to take this picture, it is quite good in terms of CA. Less then one pixel of it.
The picture was taken at f10 at f5.6 almost no CA detected see post #9 in this thread.
I am attaching the main picture taken at f10 50% reduced and pixel to pixel cut outs of the Left and then Right edge of the main picture.
I can send the RAW by e-mail on request.

[Michael Hastings]

Andrew: that looks pretty good. Are they coming out with anything wider a 12 or 14 prime would be awesome for us underwater guys.

[Andrew M.]

I hope they will come up with something around 10mm because this 10-22mm lenses that I have as well would be very good if made as a new L type.

[ColinSmith]

Well, the 10-22 is already about as near to an L series as a EF-S lens is likely to get..... uses L series glass, but doesn't have the waterproofing, build quality or likely the quality control. Canon policy is no L series EF-S lenses, so I don't see them going any wider on EF than the new 16-35 that is just about to arrive.

[Andrew M.]

Colin, 10-22mm has very bad CA and nowhere near the sharpness on the edges. I am not sure if 10-22mm has even aspherical elements inside.

[Michael Hastings]

Colin you beat me to it. I've read things where the Canon engineers have said the 10-22 actually uses all L type design and optical components they just aren't giving the L designation to any EF-S lenses. It definitely does have aspherical elements.

Andrew You mentioned earlier that in your tests the 10-22 wasn't as clean as you would like it to be, so I was hoping maybe the new camera would get Canon to make a new 14 or wider prime since theirs is fairly old and from the reviews only so-so anyway. 14 woul be borderline wide enough for us underwater shooters, but probbly worth it if the quality is there. Again we can hope. Also there still will be an evaluation to be made of whether shooting through less water with a not as good 10mm will be better than shooting through more water with a better but not quite as wide lens.

I hope they will come up with something around 10mm because this 10-22mm lenses that I have as well would be very good if made as a new L type.

[ColinSmith]

Yup, the 10-22 uses Super UD glass and is a 3 element aspherical design, which is the same basis as the L series wide angles.

I would agree that there is some CA and some softness on the edges, but with my one at least it's not what I would call bad, just that for a WA zoom it is about as good as you will get in a Canon fit.
Not sure on how the comparable Nikons are, but the 10-22 is placed ahead of the Sigma 10-20 and 12-24 and Tokina 12-24 in the comparisons I have seen.

Likely seen this review already, but
Luminous Landscape review

The 16-35 is no doubt a better quality lens, but on the Red will shoot like a 25-55 or so...... which is a lens for a different task obviously.

[Andrew M.]

Colin, 10mm is 10 and 16mm is 16 on RED or on any other camera.
Just we have to remember that on 136 format frame the neutral is 50mm and on 35 mm format (RED) the neutral is 28mm

so 10-22 or 16-35 is wide exactly the same way on RED, I mean 16 on 10-22 is the same angle as 16 on 16-35 lenses.

[Andrew M.]

I just run the similar picture as above through new Photoshop CS3 lenses CA correction feature.

And I was pleasantly surprised. Works perfect. See for yourself.
Not only corrects CA but in the process corrects sharpness and consistency of color.



The first picture is the 25% of the left side of the frame pixel to pixel mapping, full height of the frame.
The second picture is from the middle of the same frame to the very right side of the frame but I had to cut the bottom of the frame to get it below 1MB

This picture is taken right after I took the first one from my post #1 but at f5.6
Also I run it through Photoshop CS3, CA lenses correction feature.
In the CS3 the color fringing correction works almost perfect.
Also it works only on the RAW data.

If we could get something like this on the REDCINE it would fix CA problem on 16mm and less lenses once and for all.

[ColinSmith]

Colin, 10mm is 10 and 16mm is 16 on RED or on any other camera.
Just we have to remember that on 136 format frame the neutral is 50mm and on 35 mm format (RED) the neutral is 28mm

so 10-22 or 16-35 is wide exactly the same way on RED, I mean 16 on 10-22 is the same angle as 16 on 16-35 lenses.

Yup, I know I get worried with people confusing themselves like that too, just fell into it with comparing 2 lenses on 2 formats - I think we all need to change to an angle of view notation and be done with it ;-)

Main point was just that a 16-35mm lens on a Red is not super wide, and if you are looking for zoom lenses covering the 10-16mm then there seem to be few options better than the Canon 10-22, "blemishes" and all.