# Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 mkiii Feedback



## Sabaki (Oct 11, 2016)

Hey everybody!

So I noted that some received tracking numbers for their new 16-35's last week and I wondering if anybody would care to share their first impressions or perhaps a few photos?

Very curious about this lens, even if I just picked up the f/4.0 version yesterday ;D


----------



## Xyxyll (Oct 12, 2016)

Yes please! I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen any thoughts or reviews on this lens yet! Don't reviewers usually get their hands on before we do?


----------



## j-nord (Oct 13, 2016)

I am eager to see some reviews, I'm also surprised we haven't seen more info, and I'm also surprised we have seen more people asking for feedback.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 13, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> Very curious about this lens, even if I just picked up the f/4.0 version yesterday ;D



Coma (@ f2.8 ) and sharpness (@ f5.6-11) are the two most important metrics for me in considering the 16-35iii. If coma isn't stellar (pun intended) then ill be picking up the f4 IS.


----------



## Labdoc (Oct 15, 2016)

I just picked up one on Friday. Very happy with it. This pic at 16mm is just walking around by my house nothing special.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 16, 2016)

It seems to me that this lens has an extraordinary IQ - here the comparison between III and II of TDP with the most critical sensor of the 5DSr:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Flare resistance seems to improved by a large margin.

Seems to be a stellar lens IQ wise ... price in germany too: 2625 Euro, twice the price of the old one.


----------



## Xyxyll (Oct 17, 2016)

Thanks for the photo Labdoc! Please keep us updated with your thoughts as you spend more time with it.

FYI folks, I just found another image gallery of the MkIII. Hopefully even more will appear shortly.

https://dustinabbott.net/2016/10/canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-image-gallery/


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 17, 2016)

I have the 15-30 tamron.. it is nice... and useful with I.S.
(which I struggled to choose over 16-35 f4 I.S. ... because of the f2.8)

I also have the 14 f2.8L ii.... it has straightlines
......
this 16-35 iii has some improvement on the straightlines...
and vast improvement on sharpness and in corners too..

as J-nord said ...we need coma... AND thats all I need to see now...

hav ing cleaned up a lot of issues... not perfectly...but better..
it is looking useful...
coma will decide...


----------



## Labdoc (Oct 17, 2016)

Xyxyll said:


> Thanks for the photo Labdoc! Please keep us updated with your thoughts as you spend more time with it.
> 
> FYI folks, I just found another image gallery of the MkIII. Hopefully even more will appear shortly.
> 
> https://dustinabbott.net/2016/10/canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-image-gallery/


 This lens is so similar to the 24-70 L2 IQ wise, except it doesn't change length on zooming and there is no zoom lock accordingly, but I keep looking for it. I put a polarizer over a clear B&W filter, there was extreme vignetting so it will support 1 filter only which is like most wide angles. So far no down side to this lens except the price.


----------



## LordofTackle (Oct 17, 2016)

Labdoc said:


> Xyxyll said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the photo Labdoc! Please keep us updated with your thoughts as you spend more time with it.
> ...



This is very good to hear (the IQ, NOT the price).
But it fuels my GAS even more :-\


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 17, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> It seems to me that this lens has an extraordinary IQ - here the comparison between III and II of TDP with the most critical sensor of the 5DSr:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> Flare resistance seems to improved by a large margin.
> ...



Wow, that corner improvement is ridiculous! Canon has really dialed in their wide angle lens development these past 5 years. I'd love to own this lens but I don't think I can justify the price.


----------



## candyman (Oct 17, 2016)

And...significant improvement above the 16-35 f/4 IS


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=949&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## j-nord (Oct 17, 2016)

candyman said:


> And...significant improvement above the 16-35 f/4 IS
> 
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=949&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



Definitely noticeably sharper @ f5.6 and wider. For purely landscape work they seem very close at f8 and f11 but, the 2.8iii has less chromatic aberration and distortion. On the other hand it will be easier to get f11 handheld shots with the f4 IS. It appears the major weighing factor for most people will be IS vs f2.8-f4 (and of course price). I'll reiterate for the 100th time, if this lens has very good coma, it'll be a huge winner for me. Really, really don't want to pick up some specialty samyang/rokinon primes just for astro.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 18, 2016)

Played with one quite a bit today in the local photostore.

The most surprising thing is the weight! With how big it is(bigger than my 24-70mm f/2.8L II retracted), I expected it to be heavy. Nope, feels about the same as my 16-35mm F/4L IS, which sure isn't heavy.

Sharpness all around at F/2.8 is just amazing. Autofocus is crazy fast. Close-focusing got even better than the previous version, which is awesome. Everything about it just seems perfect. 

I would have bought it on the spot if I didn't have more pressing things to buy! Now, if it would have had IS on the otherhand...


----------



## kirispupis (Oct 18, 2016)

Sorry to be blunt, but my major frustration with this lens so far is that a number of people now have one, but no one's gone outside at night and aimed it up. For my uses, coma is the deciding factor. If it has great coma, I'll buy one. Otherwise I won't. I trust that Canon knows how to create a sharp lens - but I've yet to see them build a 2.8 or better lens with good coma.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 18, 2016)

kirispupis said:


> Sorry to be blunt, but my major frustration with this lens so far is that a number of people now have one, but no one's gone outside at night and aimed it up. For my uses, coma is the deciding factor. If it has great coma, I'll buy one. Otherwise I won't. I trust that Canon knows how to create a sharp lens - but I've yet to see them build a 2.8 or better lens with good coma.


Agreed, apparently no one who's interested in its coma has bought one. We all know better than to assume good coma from Canon.


----------

