# TDP Image Quality of 16-35 f/2.8L III posted



## ahsanford (Oct 12, 2016)

Behold -- Canon continues its killing streak on delivering terrifically sharp UWA zooms:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=19068

I don't see any (daylight) landscapers giving up their 16-35 f/4L IS for this one as wide open sharpness isn't a big priority for them. (I still see the 16-35 f/4L IS selling very well alongside this f/2.8L III.)

But it would appear that between the 11-24, 16-35 f/4 and 16-35 f/2.8, Canon has everything very well covered now. 

Astro folks: nothing on coma listed yet. Looks like you'll need to wait for LensTip for that.

- A


----------



## NorbR (Oct 12, 2016)

Wow 
I don't think I've ever seen such sharp corners wide open since lenses started being tested on the 5DsR. And at 16mm no less. Extremely impressing. 

And this is giving me some serious GAS. It would not be replacing my f4 (no way I'm letting that one go, too good for travel), so I'd have to live with two 16-35mm ... hmmm ...


----------



## LordofTackle (Oct 12, 2016)

NorbR said:


> Wow
> I don't think I've ever seen such sharp corners wide open since lenses started being tested on the 5DsR. And at 16mm no less. Extremely impressing.



My reaction exactly! 
In the corners, it blows the 16-35/4 out of the water (and that at 2.8)!!
And that settles it: when I finally replace my 16-35/2.8 II (terrible terrible corners) it will be with the MarkIII, not the f/4.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 12, 2016)

NorbR said:


> Wow
> I don't think I've ever seen such sharp corners wide open since lenses started being tested on the 5DsR. And at 16mm no less. Extremely impressing.
> 
> And this is giving me some serious GAS. It would not be replacing my f4 (no way I'm letting that one go, too good for travel), so I'd have to live with two 16-35mm ... hmmm ...



This is an event / sports lens, so I have zero desire to give up the stellar 16-35 f/4L IS that I used a ton at three National Parks recently. I only shoot wider than 24mm for traditional daylight + golden hour landscape work.

But Canon famously gives astro photographers the choice of _two_ of the following: fast / wide / low coma. Other than the wide end of the 24-70 f/2.8L II, I don't believe Canon's ever been able to hit all three. If this 16-35 f/2.8L III has low coma, it will be snatched up by the astro camp.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 12, 2016)

Wow! Awesome at 16mm, more comparable to the competition at 24mm and 35mm. Surprised how well it did versus the Tamron 15-30 AND it's filterable.

IS on the 16-35 f/4 IS is nice for travel, but when people are in the frame, the option of having a larger aperture is a big advantage. I'll miss the 16-35 f/4 IS but I don't think I can justify having both of them.


----------



## AJ (Oct 12, 2016)

Holy cow, that's sharp!


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 12, 2016)

This has just moved to the top of my wishlist. I sold my 16-35L II to help fund my 35L II. I will now be selling my 24L II to help fund the 16-35L III if the AF is fast and reliable. I eagerly await the full review.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> NorbR said:
> 
> 
> > Wow
> ...



Mine just arrived today and so far im pretty stoked about the IQ. As soon as these clouds depart, i will give it some time on star fields to see how it holds up. Im not holding my breath as many wide angle lenses while perfect photographically, dont hold up to the star test.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 12, 2016)

GAS just struck me...


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 12, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> Wow! Awesome at 16mm, more comparable to the competition at 24mm and 35mm. Surprised how well it did versus the Tamron 15-30 AND it's filterable.
> 
> IS on the 16-35 f/4 IS is nice for travel, but when people are in the frame, the option of having a larger aperture is a big advantage. I'll miss the 16-35 f/4 IS but I don't think I can justify having both of them.


It looks like even sharper than 24-70mm at 24mm.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 12, 2016)

Interesting. I field tested it in a controlled environment today and didn't have the same results. I directly compared it to the Tamron 15-30 VC (on a 5D Mark IV body) and wasn't blown away. I don't know that I could rule either the winner, but the much heavier vignette from the Canon might affect the real world corner performance. I expected it be the easy winner at 16mm/15mm, as the Tamron's strength is 20-24mm range. Canon has better flare and chromatic aberration performance. It's going to be hard to make the argument that the Canon is worth twice as much based on resolution, though (at least with the copy I have). Being able use screw in filters is welcome, obviously...

Note that even at f/5.6 I'm having a hard time seeing a real advantage for the Canon near the edges. I was actually a little disappointed by this result; I thought the Canon would best the Tamron handily. I've attached one final comparison at f/8 where I think the textures look a little crisper on the Canon side, but it's still not huge.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 12, 2016)

Dustin, thanks for the post! Did you run something similar against the 16-35 f/4L IS?

- A


----------



## NorbR (Oct 12, 2016)

Thanks for that, Dustin, great to see real life examples !

Hard indeed to differentiate these two lenses, but I guess that's good news, given that the Tamron was optically excellent to begin with. The heavier vignetting is expected from the Canon since it can take filters, that's an inevitable trade-off, I think.

Are you working on a review of this lens? (If so, I'll definitely wait to see it before making any decision.)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Dustin, thanks for the post! Did you run something similar against the 16-35 f/4L IS?
> 
> - A



I did. When the 16-35 f/4L and Tamron came out I did a "three-way comparison" series where I directly compared those two lenses + the 16-35L II. The latter was the big loser, obviously, and I found the former two very close with a minute edge to the 16-35 f/4L. There are four videos and/or articles in the series, but here's a link to the video where I compared resolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux_ff8dpZ34


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 12, 2016)

NorbR said:


> Thanks for that, Dustin, great to see real life examples !
> 
> Hard indeed to differentiate these two lenses, but I guess that's good news, given that the Tamron was optically excellent to begin with. The heavier vignetting is expected from the Canon since it can take filters, that's an inevitable trade-off, I think.
> 
> Are you working on a review of this lens? (If so, I'll definitely wait to see it before making any decision.)



I'm definitely in the review process. I think it is probably the better lens when compared to the Tamron, but it would be a hard sell based on resolution alone (at least in the copies I'm comparing). You won't look at the resolution results and call it a lens worth twice as much.

I commented recently when reviewing the Zeiss Milvus 18mm f/2.8 that we have a weird sort of parity in the market right now. It used to be that the best lenses were miles ahead of the average ones optically, and the first party lenses were far better than the third party ones. That's not really the case anymore. There are so many good lenses that it is hard for any one lens to separate itself from the pack in a noticeable way.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 12, 2016)

Smokin' thunderturtles, that's sharp- at f2.8. Less Chromatic aberration at 2.8 than the other at f/4. We have a winner here. Vignetting looks very strong though, and coma is yet to be seen.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 13, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> Smokin' thunderturtles, that's sharp- at f2.8. Less Chromatic aberration at 2.8 than the other at f/4. We have a winner here. Vignetting looks very strong though, and coma is yet to be seen.


Re: Vignette - Consider other ultra-wide lenses wide open at f/2.8:
Tamron 15-30mm (Moderate vignette and poor transmission)
Zeiss 15mm prime (Abysmal vignette)
Zeiss 18mm f/2.8 (Heavy vignette)

Re: Coma & Astigmatism 
"Jack Nichols" shared this in the TDP comments section: 
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AiF5JDlxtuL0mut-bmDbmWOxDXnF9w 

It appears to be very good at the wide-angle end, and at least decent at the telephoto end. I think most people would be more interested at the wide-angle end.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 13, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Smokin' thunderturtles, that's sharp- at f2.8. Less Chromatic aberration at 2.8 than the other at f/4. We have a winner here. Vignetting looks very strong though, and coma is yet to be seen.
> ...



Vignette is definitely heavier than the Tamron (very noticeable), but the point about light transmission on the Tamron is very valid. Only other thing I'm disappointed about is that the distortion seems fairly strong.

I'm hoping to get a decent night for astro in the near future, though I'm heading to Toronto for a few days tomorrow - won't see too many stars there!! 

It can produce pretty stunning images. The following is one I took tomorrow. And no, this is not HDR. This has only had a few sliders moved in Lightroom. That extra dynamic range pretty much renders HDR unnecessary except in the most extreme situations.


----------



## applecider (Oct 13, 2016)

Dustin says "the following is one I took tomorrow." ... 
Now that's a future proof lens!! Have a nice trip ;D


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 13, 2016)

Dustin. Very interesting comparison pictures, as always. Thank you. My two cents. It appears to my that the TDP pictures shows superior contrast in the Canon lens. Sharpness is harder to compare to the Tamron due to the different camera bodies that are used. The test pictures you have provided so far may not be the best in order to compare contrast differences between these two lenses.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 13, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Dustin. Very interesting comparison pictures, as always. Thank you. My two cents. It appears to my that the TDP pictures shows superior contrast in the Canon lens. Sharpness is harder to compare to the Tamron due to the different camera bodies that are used. The test pictures you have provided so far may not be the best in order to compare contrast differences between these two lenses.



Fair enough, and quick screenshots don't necessarily tell the whole story. My video episode will break it down in more detail. That being said - if you look at the TDP comparison the 16-35 f/4 seems to destroy the Tamron; a result that I've not seen duplicated anywhere else. He seems to have gotten really rotten copies of a few Tamrons, as his results don't jive with my own. For what it's worth, the 15-30 actually gets a higher sharpness rating than the 16-35 f/4 at DXO. I found the 16-35 a hair sharper, but it was so close as to be undetectable except when comparing side by side.

I guess my point is that chart tests frequently don't tell the whole story of what a lens does in the field. The Sigma 35 ART charts sharper than, say, the Tamron 35 VC, but the latter's flatter field of focus makes it actually sharper in real world shooting. The Sigma also looks pretty close to the 35L II in chart tests, but when I shot them side by side I chose the images from the 35L II every time. The 15-30 VC is a better lens than what Bryan's test suggest.

At f/2.8 on the wide end I find the Tamron a bit sharper in the corners, and I had others look at the monitor in a blind test and tell me which one they thought was sharper (Tamron). At 18 and 20mm I slightly preferred the Canon. Stopped down I think the Canon improves more than the Tamron. It's definitely better in the CA and flare departments. It vignettes much more heavily and has more distortion than the Tamron, though.

If I were just choosing a lens, I'd probably choose the Canon. When one costs twice as much as the other, though, I think the buying decision gets much, much harder.


----------



## LordofTackle (Oct 13, 2016)

Hi Dustin,

thanks for the valuable input, as always. 



> Fair enough, and quick screenshots don't necessarily tell the whole story. My video episode will break it down in more detail. That being said - if you look at the TDP comparison the 16-35 f/4 seems to destroy the Tamron; a result that I've not seen duplicated anywhere else. He seems to have gotten really rotten copies of a few Tamrons, as his results don't jive with my own. For what it's worth, the 15-30 actually gets a higher sharpness rating than the 16-35 f/4 at DXO. I found the 16-35 a hair sharper, but it was so close as to be undetectable except when comparing side by side.



Might very well be true, and/or you could have an exceptionally good copy of the Tamron (I don't recall whether you got that lens from Tamron for the Review or whether you bought it?). But it is really nice to see some real world pictures, they always tell a little different story than test charts. I'm looking forward to your final review of the 16-35/2.8.



> If I were just choosing a lens, I'd probably choose the Canon. When one costs twice as much as the other, though, I think the buying decision gets much, much harder.



Me too. I have been rather unhappy with the mark II lens for quite some time now, but was also never really happy with the options to choose from (Tamron 15-30 or 16-35/4). I was always struggling with the idea to buy the Tamron since it does not accept filters and I also had some bad experience with the 150-600 (IQ and AF). I also use the 2.8 quite often so I didn't really wanted to loose that 1 stop of light by buying the f/4 version. 
So now I'm really happy that canon brought us the Mark III which really seems to deliver in term of IQ (about the AF I have no doubts since it's a canon lens). The only real problem is the hefty price! But I guess I will have to bite that bullet at some point since filter option is really important to me. 

Sebastian


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 13, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Dustin. Very interesting comparison pictures, as always. Thank you. My two cents. It appears to my that the TDP pictures shows superior contrast in the Canon lens. Sharpness is harder to compare to the Tamron due to the different camera bodies that are used. The test pictures you have provided so far may not be the best in order to compare contrast differences between these two lenses.
> ...



The reason why I (we) love your reviews, Dustin, is that you give us the insights that chart tests don't. Keep up the good work!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2016)

Anyone interested in a very lightly used Tamron 15-30?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2016)

applecider said:


> Dustin says "the following is one I took tomorrow." ...
> Now that's a future proof lens!! Have a nice trip ;D



He's got a buddy that can walk on water too.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 16, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> applecider said:
> 
> 
> > Dustin says "the following is one I took tomorrow." ...
> ...



LOL


----------



## Act444 (Oct 18, 2016)

Thanks to both TDP and Dustin for the samples!

Massive improvement over the II, but considering the price hike I would have been unimpressed with anything less...

Not sure if it is worth the big premium over the f4 version though unless one absolutely requires f2.8 if I'm honest.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 20, 2016)

Agree with Dustin on the TDP's copy of the Tamron 15-30. It just doesn't reflect the IQ I see in my copy. Brian, if you're out there, I'm happy to let you borrow mine if you want to put another copy through your ringer.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 21, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> Agree with Dustin on the TDP's copy of the Tamron 15-30. It just doesn't reflect the IQ I see in my copy. Brian, if you're out there, I'm happy to let you borrow mine if you want to put another copy through your ringer.



The official review at TDP is posted. Over 4 stops of vignetting in the corners, wow.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1073&Camera=979&LensComp=986

- A


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 21, 2016)

The thing is about the Tamron...if it's the only tamron in your kit bag and all your other lenses are Canon L's then you will see colour and contrast differences. The other thing is that I've not had a Tamron lens that has lasted in a professional context for more than a few years. I went through two Tamron 17-35mm dii lenses before I bought a 16-35IIL. The latter is now really old and a little tatty looking, but it's still performing well and it's well outlasted any 3rd party lens that I've bought. Ironically....even in it's current state, it is still worth more s/h than when I paid for it. I guess that's lens inflation and resale values for you! If I bought the Tamron, I would be concerned over long term reliability and I'd know that I could only sell it for a fraction of the price of the Canon...plus there's that whole front filter issue with it.


----------

