Updating rader

Rated 3.82/5 based on 911 customer reviews

With an equivalent focal length of 25.6-56mm and an equivalent aperture of F4.5 there are better wide-angle APS-C options on the market such as the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II Lens or the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM that can really take advantage of a fast aperture for a fraction of the price. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information.

For this reason we're not going to consider this lens for use on the APS-C platform in this review. Your credit card will not be charged until we ship the item.

Field Map for the currently 99 (Amazon) mark ii version at 16mm and f/8:https:// yet another tab to compare the Sharpness Field Map for the currently priced 49 (Amazon), but discontinued, original version, at 16mm and f/8:https:// more to a lens than Dx OMark Sharpness Field Map measurements, but just for grins, open yet another tab to compare these three Canon full-frame lenses to the currently 8 (Amazon) Sony 10-18mm f/4 (for e mount APS-C bodies), at the equivalent 10mm FL and f/8 (which yields more Do F, but no visible diffraction at any given print size and viewing distance that's reasonable for the pixel count) than a 16mm full-frame lens at f/8):https:// beats the mark i and mark ii versions of the Canon 16-35mm by a country mile (on a 24MP body). I still shoot with my original 16-35mm f/2.8 L (call it mark I).

But again, there's more to a lens than Dx OMark Sharpness Field Map measurements.https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/Canon EOS5DSR/Result/Dak Result/Canon_EF_16_35mm_F28L_III_USM/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_16mm_f8.pnghttps://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/Canon EOS5DSR/Result/Dak Result/Canon_EF16_35mm_F28L_II_USM/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_16mm_f8.pnghttps://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/Canon EOS5DSR/Result/Dak Result/Canon_EF_16_35mm_F28L_USM/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_16mm_f8.pnghttps://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/Sony A6000/Result/Dak Result/Sony_E_10_18mm_F4/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_10mm_f8Thanks for this report. I love that lens, and I have no intention to spend over ,000 to upgrade because I don't think I'd get my money's worth upgrading.

When we first heard that Canon was going to release an updated version of the lens we were pretty darn excited.

The Mark II was a fantastic piece of glass, but struggled in terms of corner sharpness and control of chromatic aberration along the edges and in the corners of the frame.

Canon offers a way to bridge that same span with only two lenses, which can make shooting an event, or travelling, massively easier for those people that work with two bodies.As long as you have a 35mm and 70mm option, you can pretty easily get a normal perspective shot by simply stepping in our out, and you can always throw a small 50mm in your bag for next to no cost or weight penalty.I wouldn't say that they're behind the times, they have one of the best camera and lens sets in the world.Did you find different results on different bodies?Vignette is high but I'm doubtful of the 4.6 Ev figure quoted...based on RAW analysis using RAWdigger for 16mm f/2.8: Center region = 800 DNExtreme Corner = 75 DNVign = log(800/75)/log(2)Vign = 3.4 Ev (approx.)Regarding APSC, why does DPR insist on multiplying the maximum aperture 2.8 by 1.6 to say the equivalent aperture is f 4.5. The maximum aperture does not change when used on APSC. You divide the ACTUAL focal length by the diameter of the opening to obtain the F number. In actual fact the old 16 / 35, 2.8 lens performs very well on a crop camera because the outer part of the image circle is cropped off.

Leave a Reply